Yotes, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. , 2013 COA 124, ¶ 14, 310 P.3d 288, 291. B. The Applicable Law
Indeed, construing subsection (IX.5) to apply exclusively would effectively nullify or render meaningless section 8-73-108(5)(e) ’s language that disqualification is required if "any of the following reasons" contained in the twenty-five subsections exists. See Yotes, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2013 COA 124, ¶ 14, 310 P.3d 288 (courts must give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all parts of a statute and avoid an interpretation or construction that renders any language meaningless). ¶22 It appears the Panel may have invoked the canon of statutory interpretation dictating that the specific overrides the general.
Because these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, we must accept them on appeal. See ¶ 8-74-107(4), C.R.S. 2017; Yotes, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2013 COA 124, ¶ 10, 310 P.3d 288. ¶ 20 Notwithstanding Dos Almas's arguments concerning the assets it did not acquire, the hearing officer's findings concerning Dos Almas's acquisition of 90% of WooPig's physical and intangible assets support the conclusion that Dos Almas acquired "substantially all" of WooPig's assets, as required under the applicable statutory criteria.
¶ 53 We may not disturb a hearing officer's evidentiary findings if they are supported by substantial evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Yotes, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2013 COA 124, ¶ 10, 310 P.3d 288 ; Tilley v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 924 P.2d 1173, 1177 (Colo.App.1996). Substantial evidence means evidence that is probative, credible, and competent, and of a character that warrants a reasonable belief in the existence of facts supporting a particular finding, without regard to the existence of contradictory testimony or contrary inferences.
¶ 17 Our primary task in construing a statute is to give effect to the General Assembly's intent. Yotes, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2013 COA 124, ¶ 14, 310 P.3d 288. We first look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words the General Assembly chose to utilize.
We may not disturb a hearing officer's evidentiary findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record or reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. See Yotes, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2013 COA 124, ¶ 10. "It is the hearing officer's responsibility, as trier of fact, to weigh the evidence, assess credibility, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and determine the inferences to be drawn therefrom." Hoskins v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2014 COA 47, ¶ 10. ¶ 9 We have reviewed the entire transcript of the administrative hearing.