Petitioner's mistaken belief that he could make it to the hearing did not justify his failure either to appear or to make a timely request for a postponement. See Gardner v. District of Columbia, 736 A.2d 1012, 1018 (D.C. 1999) (holding agency did not err in denying request for reconsideration where petitioner "gave no reason for his absence other than his own mistake" as to the hearing date). In response to the ALJ's point that he had not moved for a continuance as required, petitioner asserts that he did not do so when he learned of the eviction because there was insufficient time to prepare a motion.
Factual findings are supported by "substantial evidence" when there is such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. at 181 (quoting Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp. Servs. , 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) ). We uphold OAH's legal conclusions unless they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ " Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement, Inc. , 905 A.2d 177, 181 (D.C. 2006) (quoting Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) ). "Although our review in a workers' compensation case is of the decision of the CRB, not that of the ALJ, ‘we cannot ignore the compensation order which is the subject of the CRB's review.’ " Reyes v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 48 A.3d 159, 164 (D.C. 2012) (quoting Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 916 A.2d 149, 151 (D.C. 2007) ).
Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We sustain OAH's legal conclusions unless they are “[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C.1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The goal of the [District of Columbia's] unemployment compensation act is to protect employees against economic dependency caused by temporary unemployment and to reduce the necessity of relief or other [government subsidized] welfare programs.”
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Giles, supra, 758 A.2d at 524 (quoting Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999)) (internal quotation mark omitted). However, we review the ALJ's legal conclusions of whether a terminated employee's actions constitute gross or simple misconduct de novo. Odeniran v. Hanley Wood, LLC, 985 A.2d 421, 424 (D.C. 2009).
Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) (citations omitted). OAH's legal conclusions must be sustained unless they are [a] "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999). We will not "affirm an administrative determination which reflects a misconception of the relevant law or a faulty application of the law."
Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) (internal citations omitted). An employee who voluntarily leaves his or her job is generally disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the employee resigned due to "good cause connected with the work.
Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla," but rather is "such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. at 181; see also Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999). III.