Professional Standards Comm'n v. Smith

An administrative law judge ALJ suspended Charles Smith’s teaching certificate for six months, finding that he had improperly coached his students on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills ITBS. This decision was affirmed by the Professional Standards Commission Commission and Smith petitioned for judicial review to the superior court. The superior court reversed the ALJ’s decision, finding that he had erroneously considered hearsay testimony and had admitted improperly authenticated documents. The court further held that without this testimony and these documents, there was insufficient evidence to support the decision. We granted the Commission’s application for discretionary review of the superior court’s order and, because there was sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s decision, we reverse.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, review of an ALJ’s decision by a superior court is done without a jury and is confined to the evidence and testimony received by the ALJ. OCGA § 50-13-19 g. “The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.” OCGA § 50-13-19 h. The superior court’s review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by “any evidence.” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 242 SE2d 101 1978. “When reviewing a superior court’s order in a case under the Administrative Procedure Act, this Court’s function is to determine whether the superior court has, in its own final ruling, committed an error of law.” Miles v. Smith, 239 Ga. App. 641, 642 521 SE2d 687 1999.