Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Bertha McWilliams

── Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Bertha McWilliams ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 212 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-25-417 Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD DIVISION PROVIDER SERVICES AND QUALITY [NO. 60CV-24-3363] ASSURANCE/OFFICE OF LONG-TERM CARE APPELLANT V. AGENCY DECISION AFFIRMED; BERTHA MCWILLIAMS CIRCUIT COURT DECISION REVERSED APPELLEE KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge This is an appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Appellant Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Provider Services and Quality Assurance/Office of Long-Term Care (DHS) appeals from an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court that reversed the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) and removed appellee Bertha McWilliams’ name from the Adult and Long-Term Care Facility Resident Maltreatment Central Registry (maltreatment registry). In the administrative proceeding, the DHS Office of Appeals and Hearings ALJ found that McWilliams was negligent in her responsibility to care for long-term-care-facility residents and ordered that her name be placed on the maltreatment registry. The circuit court reversed the ALJ’s decision because it found that the ALJ’s order was made under an erroneous standard of care. On appeal, DHS argues that (1) the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, (2) the ALJ’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and (3) the circuit court erred in reversing the ALJ’s order. We agree with DHS’s arguments. Therefore, we affirm the ALJ’s decision and we reverse the order of circuit court. I. Standard of Review This court’s review under the APA is directed not toward the circuit court but toward the decision of the administrative agency. Baldwin v. Ark. Dep’t of Transp., 2025 Ark. App. 114, 708 S.W.3d 793. This is so because administrative agencies are better equipped by their specialization, experience, and more flexible procedures to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies. Id. An appellate court’s review of administrative decisions is limited in scope. The appellate court may reverse or modify an agency’s decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2024). 2  It is not the role of the appellate court to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in the APA. Ark. Contractors Licensing Bd. v. Pegasus Renovation Co., 347 Ark. 320, 64 S.W.3d 241 (2001). The pertinent question is whether there is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion; the issue is not whether the appellate court would have made a different decision but whether reasonable minds could conclude as the agency did. Jones v. Ark. Loc. Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 2018 Ark. App. 287, 550 S.W.3d 27. The supreme court has held that where the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, it automatical