The assumed facts underlying this decision may have been within the personal knowledge of the Commissioner or gleaned from his position, they were, however, not placed on the record during the hearing. Our Supreme Court in Portland SS. Oper. v. Pilot Comm's, 232 Or. 495, 501, 375 P.2d 420 (1962), said in reviewing an administrative order: "* * * The requirement that findings be supported by identifiable evidence rests upon the ground that the party adversely affected by the administrative order should have an opportunity for cross-examination and to offer evidence in rebuttal.
There must be some specific respect in which there has been a prejudicial departure from requirements of the law or abuse of the administrative agency's discretion. In Portland SS. Oper. v. Pilot Comm's, 232 Or. 495, 375 P.2d 420 (1962); Jehovah's Witnesses v. Mullen et al, 214 Or. 281, 330 P.2d 5, 74 ALR2d 347 (1958), cert denied, 359 U.S. 436, 79 S Ct 940, 3 L Ed2d 932 (1959); and Riesland v. Bailey, 146 Or. 574, 31 P.2d 183, 92 ALR 1207 (1934), the court emphasized that the facts on which the determination is made must be admitted or clearly proved, that the order must be supported by substantial evidence, that ignoring the factual presentation made at the hearing would be arbitrary and capricious on the part of the administrator, and that the evidence must support the finding. [10.] The defendant's opinion and order states that: "* * * [P]ursuant to ORS 307.475, [the department] may make a recommendation only where failure to make a timely filing was due to absence, disability or illness of such an extent as to prevent filing of the claim (or proof) during a substantial portion of the filing period. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)