2.2Administrative Appeals in General¹

“An appeal shall lie from any order, decision, or opinion of any state board, commission, or agency, authorized under the laws of this state to promulgate rules from which an appeal or other judicial review has not otherwise been provided for by law[.] . . .” MCL 600.631. See also Const 1963, art 6, § 28.

A.Standard of Review

Circuit court standard of review. Appellate review of “final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency. . . shall include, as a minimum, the determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are authorized by law; and, in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Const 1963, art 6, § 28. “Substantial evidence is any evidence that reasonable minds would accept as adequate to support the decision; it is more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance of the evidence.” Mich Ed Ass’n Political Action Comm v Secretary of State, 241 Mich App 432, 444 (2000). In reviewing an agency’s decision, “a court must review the entire record.” Lawrence v Mich Unemployment Ins Agency, 320 Mich App 422, 432 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In an agency appeal, “the record includes all documents, files, pleadings, testimony, and opinions and orders of the tribunal, agency, or officer (or a certified copy), except those summarized or omitted in whole or in part by stipulation of the parties. . . .” MCR 7.210(A)(2); see also MCR 7.109(A)(2).

“To determine whether an administrative agency’s determination is adjudicatory in nature, courts compare the agency’s procedures to court procedures to determine whether they are similar. Quasi-judicial proceedings include procedural characteristics common to courts, such as a right to a hearing, a right to be represented by counsel, the right to submit exhibits, and the authority to subpoena witnesses and require parties to produce documents.” Natural Resources Defense Council v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 300 Mich App 78, 86 (2013). “The promulgation of an agency rule does not constitute a decision by the agency that is judicial or quasi-judicial in nature; therefore, Const 1963, art 6, § 28, does not apply to” “emergency rules promulgated by [the] Department of Health and Human Services[.]” Slis v Michigan, 332 Mich App 312, 318, 343 (2020).

Court of Appeals standard of review. The Court of Appeals “reviews a lower court’s review of an administrative decision to determine whether the lower court applied correct legal principles and whether it misapprehended or misapplied the substantial evidence test to the agency’s factual findings.” Braska v Challenge Mfg Co, 307 Mich App 340, 351-352 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This is essentially a clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. at 352. Questions regarding the proper application of statutes and court rules are reviewed de novo. Lawrence, 320 Mich App at 433.

1.Non-Contested Cases

“[W]hen a hearing is not required, courts review an agency decision only under the ‘authorized by law’ standard; the substantial-evidence test does not apply[.]” Henderson v Civil Serv Comm, 321 Mich App 25, 39, 41, 44 (2017) (rejecting the plaintiffs’ “argument that the . . . competent, material, and substantial evidence standard, [in Const 1963, art 6, § 28 and MCL 24.306(1)(d)], applie[d]” in an uncontested agency case, and holding that the circuit court “exceeded . . . the authorized-by-law standard by reweighing the evidence, making credibility decisions, and substituting its judgment for that of the [Civil Service Commission]”). An agency’s decision is not authorized by law if it is “in violation of a statute [or constitution], in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, made upon unlawful procedures resulting in material prejudice, or . . . is arbitrary and capricious[.]” Henderson, 321 Mich App at 44 (quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted).

2.Contested Cases

Where “the determination whether [a] hearing officer’s decision is ‘authorized by law,’ Const 1963, art 6, § 28, . . . turns on statutory interpretation,” the issue “is a question of law [that the appellate court] reviews de novo.” Detroit Pub Sch v Conn, 308 Mich App 234, 246 (2014). “‘Respectful consideration’ of an agency’s statutory interpretation is not akin to ‘deference’; . . . [w]hile an agency’s interpretation can be a helpful aid in construing a statutory provision with a ‘doubtful or obscure’ meaning, [the] courts are responsible for finally deciding whether an agency’s interpretation is erroneous under traditional rules of statutory construction.” Grass Lake Improvement Bd v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 316 Mich App 356, 363 (2016).

B.Application of Court Rules

“[A]ppeals shall be made in accordance with the rules of the supreme court.” MCL 600.631. Specific rules cover appeals from decisions:

•arising under the Michigan Employment Security Act, MCR 7.116,² 

•of the Michigan Civil Service Commission, MCR 7.117,³ 

•of the Michigan Parole Board, MCR 7.118,⁴

•of agencies governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCR 7.119,⁵ 

•arising under the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCR 7.120,⁶ 

•involving concealed pistol licenses, MCR 7.121,⁷

•of zoning ordinance determinations, MCR 7.122,⁸and

•of agencies not governed by another rule, MCR 7.123.⁹