Lee v. DCBS

No. 517                June 4, 2025                     175

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                   Kevin J. LEE,
                     Petitioner,
                          v.
   DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS
                    SERVICES,
                    Respondent.
    Department of Consumer and Business Services
                    INS190008;
                      A182238

  Argued and submitted April 1, 2025.
  Kevin J. Lee argued the cause and filed the briefs pro se.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge,
and Hellman, Judge.
  HELLMAN, J.
  Affirmed.
176                                               Lee v. DCBS

        HELLMAN, J.
         Petitioner, appearing pro se, seeks judicial review of
a final order of the Department of Consumer and Business
Services (DCBS) that revoked his insurance licenses and
assessed civil penalties. On judicial review, petitioner
argues that the final order is not supported by substantial
evidence. We affirm.
         “We review an agency’s order in a contested case
for errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a), substantial evidence,
ORS 183.482(8)(c), and substantial reason.” Dorn v. Teacher
Standards and Practices Comm., 

, 

 (2021). “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit
a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482.
“Substantial reason exists where the agency has articulated
a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusion that the agency draws from them.” Dorn, 

 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Our review is
restricted to the record.” 

 (citing ORS 183.482(7)); see also
ORS 183.417(9) (defining “[t]he record in a contested case”).
         A detailed recitation of the facts would not benefit
the bench, the bar, or the public. Petitioner held securities
sales, insurance provider, and insurance consultant licenses
in Oregon for several years. In 2017, the Federal Industry
Regulatory Authority (FINRA) contacted petitioner to
determine if he had violated any federal securities laws
when he provided investment advice to his former neighbors. In 2018, petitioner filed a resident insurance license
renewal application with the state and represented that he
had not “been named or involved as a party in an administrative proceeding, including FINRA sanction.” DCBS subsequently alleged that petitioner “act[ed] as a state investment adviser in Oregon without a state investment license,”
provided “misleading information” on his insurance license
applications by not disclosing the FINRA investigation, and
that he engaged in “fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practices.” At the contested hearing, the daughter of petitioner’s
former neighbors, petitioner, and a DCBS financial enforcement officer testified, and the administrative law judge
(ALJ) received into evidence numerous exhibits offered by
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)             177

each party. The ALJ ruled in favor of DCBS and issued a
proposed order. DCBS adopted the ALJ’s proposed order as
the final order.
          We have reviewed each of petitioner’s 18 separate
arguments concerning the final order and conclude that
petitioner presents no basis to reverse. Many of petitioner’s
arguments dispute DCBS’s interpretation of the facts, but
we do not reweigh evidence on appeal. See Gaylord v. DMV,

, 

 (2017) (“When in a review
role, a court does not review for the better evidence.”). Many
of petitioner’s arguments also depend on his testimony—
which DCBS found not credible—and we do not revisit credibility on appeal. See 

 (“A substantial evidence review does
not entail or permit the reviewing tribunal to reweigh or to
assess the credibility of the evidence that was presented to
the fact-finding body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.))
And petitioner’s arguments do not establish that DCBS
committed any legal error in its analysis. In sum, substantial evidence supports DBCS’s findings of fact, and the order
provides substantial reason for its conclusions. Petitioner
has not demonstrated any legal error on DCBS’s part.
        Affirmed.