Maryland State Board of Social Work Examiners v. Chertkov

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a reviewing court does not have the authority to impose its view of the appropriate sanction on a professional disciplinary board, as long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support the sanction
• finding that, even if an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, it may nonetheless be “arbitrary or capricious” if individuals are given substantially different sanctions for identical conduct
• explaining that, “[e]ven in cases reviewing the severity of agency sanctions for arbitrariness or capriciousness, some Maryland cases have disposed of the entire issue purely on the basis of whether the decision to impose a sanction satisfies the substantial evidence test”
• explaining an agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, even if supported by substantial evidence, when “individuals are given substantially different sanctions for identical conduct”
• “Final decisions are presumptively correct, and a court must show deference both to findings of fact and drawings of inferences by an agency.”
• “Other viable theories of arbitrary or capricious sanctions may include taking improper information into consideration in selecting the sanction or deviating unexplainedly from prior established precedents.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).