Cited by

Exam’rs, ¶ 13 (App. 2006) (noting that, although the Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners is not bound by an ALJ’s credibility findings, courts “recognize the importance of the ALJ’s observation of the demeanor and attitude of the witnesses when rendering findings of fact as to those witnesses’ credibility”).

Exam’rs, ¶ 12 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (quoting A.R.S.

Exam’rs, ¶ 18 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 12 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, (explaining that if there is substantial evidence in the record to support both the ALJ’s finding and the administrative agency’s decision to overrule it, this court will uphold the decision of the agency).

Examiners, –92, ¶¶ 13–15 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (court reviews agency’s application of law de novo).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2006).

Exam’rs, ¶ 9 (App. 2006); see A.R.S.

Exam’rs, ¶¶ 13-14 , (requiring the boai'd to set forth factual support when it overrules an ALJ’s credibility findings).

Exam’rs, ¶ 7, (“We review the agency’s application of law de novo.”).

Examiners, ¶ 12 (App. 2006) (holding “because the Board, and not the ALJ, issues the final administrative decision, the Board is not bound by the ALJ’s findings of fact, including those related to credibility”).

Exam’rs, –92 ¶¶ 12, 18, –75 (App. 2006) (“[A]n agency has the authority to make independent findings of fact.

Exam’rs, ¶ 7; see also Stant, 234 Ariz. at 201, ¶ 15.

Examn’rs, ¶ 10, (explaining the “‘predicate upon which our deference is given to the finder of fact is the assumption that he has indeed had the opportunity to look the witness in the eye and reach a conclusion with respect to his veracity or lack thereof.’” (quoting Adams v. Indus.

Examn’rs, ¶ 10, (quoting Adams v. Indus.

Exam’rs, ¶¶ 12-14, (holding the Medical Board, as the body responsible for issuing a final administrative decision, “may overrule [an administrative law judge’s] findings [of fact] if it finds evidence in the record for doing so”).

Exam’rs, ¶ 15, W. States Petroleum, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Envtl.

Exam’rs, P.3d 970 (App. 2006).