Arizona Department of Economic Security; City of Phoenix, Petitioners, v. United States Department of Labor, Respondent, 125 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

WEDCO's own president stated that a "cursory review" would have revealed the fraud, and the Department of Economic Security did little to recover the funds. The Administrative Review Board held that this amounted to gross negligence under 29 U.S.C. § 1574(e) (1). The statute specifies that " [r]eview shall be limited to questions of law and the Secretary's findings of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence." 29 U.S.C. § 1578(a) (3). It is silent on the standard of review for mixed questions, which this is. Agency conclusions on such questions generally receive substantial deference. See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 131 (1944); Fulani v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 49 F.3d 904, 912 (2nd Cir. 1995); Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 35 F.3d 600, 604 (1st Cir. 1994); Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board, 769 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1985). We find no error.

AFFIRMED.