A decision of an administrative agency determined, upon review by an appellate court, to have been based upon an incorrect interpretation of a statute must be remanded to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the reviewing court's guidance. Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, March 2, 1973, 8 Wn. App. 448. Reversed.

The Board has the power to substitute its judgment for that of the examiner on all issues, including credibility of witnesses observed by the examiner and not by the Board. Farm Supply Distribs., Inc. v. State Utils. Transp. Comm'n, 8 Wn. App. 448, 452, 506 P.2d 1306 (1973), rev'd on other grounds, 83 Wn.2d 446, 518 P.2d 1237 (1974). Mr. Rosales' claim that the loss of demeanor evidence constituted a denial of due process is contrary to the bulk of judicial authority.

The correct application of the rule is simply that a reviewing court (the trial court or an appellate court) may take into consideration the views of the hearings officer and those of the Board, but that upon review of the record as a whole courts must sustain the findings of the Board if substantial evidence supports them. Taking into consideration the views of the hearings officer was suggested in Farm Supply Distribs., Inc. v. State Utils. Transp. Comm'n, 8 Wn. App. 448, 506 P.2d 1306 (1973), rev'd on other grounds, 83 Wn.2d 446, 518 P.2d 1237 (1974), (without comment as to the efficacy of consideration of a hearings officer's views). We are disinclined further to modify the rule in Gogerty unless specifically required by subsequent opinion of the Supreme Court.