Substantial evidence is evidence that is valid, legal, and persuasive and that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion and force the mind to pass beyond speculation and conjecture. Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005). We review the entire record and give the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the agency's decision.

When this court engages in judicial review of an agency decision, we review the decision of the agency and not that of the circuit court. See, e.g., Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005). [8] Again, we do not find where the Board decided the individual issues now raised by Hanks in his appeal.

Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 361 Ark. 300, ___ S. W. 3d ___.

Here, Mr. Wells could have sought review of the Parole Board's decision as required by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, Ark. Code Ann.§ 25-15-212 (Rep. 2002). Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 361 Ark. 300, 304, 206 S.W. 3d 796, 799 (2005). He did not seek such review and as such, no state court has been afforded an opportunity to consider his matter.

To establish an absence of substantial evidence to support the decision, the challenging party must demonstrate that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons could not reach its conclusion. Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs , 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005). When the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, it automatically follows that the decision cannot be classified as arbitrary and capricious.

McQuay v. Ark. State Bd. of Architects, 337 Ark. 339, 989 S.W.2d 499 (1999). See also Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005) (holding that in order to preserve a constitutional argument in an appeal from an agency decision, the issue must be raised and developed at the administrative level). We therefore affirm the decision to deny the billboard permit.

We have repeatedly held that in order to preserve a constitutional argument in an appeal from an agency decision, the constitutional issue must first be raised and developed at the administrative level. See, e.g., Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 361 Ark. 300-206 S.W.3d 796 (2005). Moreover, we recently held that a petitioner was not required to first seek a declaration regarding the constitutionality of an act from an agency, where the petitioner had no action pending before the agency that required her to also raise her constitutional challenge, prior to filing an action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court.

Id. at 185, 959 S.W.2d at 48. The agency's decision will be upheld if there is any substantial evidence to support it. Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005). Substantial evidence is evidence that is valid, legal, and persuasive and that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion and force the mind to pass beyond speculation and conjecture. Ark. Bd. of Exam'rs in Counseling v. Carlson, 334 Ark. 614, 976 S.W.2d 934 (1998).

2002), which prohibits the practice and offer to practice chiropractic medicine in the State of Arkansas without a license. We affirmed the Board's decision in Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005). On January 21, 2003, Ms. Fryar filed suit against Appellees, alleging negligent treatment on the part of Mr. Teston and respondeat superior liability for Touchstone. On December 2, 2003, Appellees filed a motion in limine to exclude Ms. Fryar's expert witness, Dr. Ronald Colclasure, and a motion for summary judgment.

This court has acknowledged this reasoning in numerous cases. See, e.g., Teston v. Arkansas St. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796 (2005) (administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than courts, to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies); Williams v. Arkansas State Board of Phys. Therapy, 353 Ark. 778, 120 S.W.3d 581 (2003). This court rephrased this premise in McGhee v. Mid South Gas Co., 235 Ark. 50, 357 S.W.2d 282 (1962), as follows: