In Shuman v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board , trainer Mark Shuman filed suit in New York County Supreme Court challenging an order of the NYS Racing and Wagering Board (RWB) suspending him. When the case was later transferred to the Appellate Division, First Department, the RWB's determination was confirmed.
Back on October 25, 2004, the RWB suspended Shuman for 30 days for violating a rule that seeks to ensure that horses are not injected with banned substances within 5 days of a race.
Shuman denied any unauthorized treatments and alleged that he was a victim of a conspiracy aimed at him and the horse's owner.
When a court is asked to review an administrative agency's factual findings, the issue is whether or not there was "substantial evidence" to support the agency's conclusions. Even if a court were to find that the evidence supported another outcome, it must affirm as long as the agency's decision is reasonable under the circumstances.
Administrative agencies are accorded considerable leeway in interpreting evidence, especially when it involves the application of knowledge within the agency's area of expertise or the assessment of witness credibility.
The AD1 held that the RWB reasonably relied on expert testimony that "Askara" was injected with banned substances. The majority further concluded that the RWB could have reasonably inferred from that testimony that there was no other reason to inject the substances into Askara's joint other than for unauthorized purposes.
A dissenter concluded there was a gap in the evidentiary record and that "substantial evidence" did not exist. What makes the appellate panel's disagreement so interesting is the hostile nature of the exchange which appears in the decision.
The majority charged the dissenter with misconstruing the "Court's review function and improperly embark[ing] on a de novo review of the facts, substituting its judgment for that of the agency." The dissent countered that the majority's response was "overheated, just as the opposite assertion -- that the majority has abdicated its review function -- would be."
Rather than engaging in a race, the judges of the AD1 seemed to have become embroiled in a cat horse fight.
And they're off ... to the Court of Appeals?
For a copy of the Appellate Division decision, please use the following link: In re Mark Shuman v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board