¶1OPINION
¶2Appellant sought judicial review of the decision of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles’ hearing officer which concluded appellant had violated NRS 484.383 by refusing to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of his blood.
¶3“ih reviewing the hearing officer’s decision, this court is *638limited, as is the district court, to a review of the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the decision was supported by the evidence. See Miller v. West, 88 Nev. 105, 493 P.2d 1332 (1972); cf. Nevada Industrial Comm’n v. Williams, 91 Nev. 686, 541 P.2d 905 (1975). In our view, there is substantial evidence to support that decision. See NRS 233B.-140; cf. People v. Tunstall, 161 N.E.2d 300 (Ill. 1959); State v. Johnson, 527 P.2d 1324 (Wash.App. 1974).
¶4Affirmed.
¶5 NRS 484.383 provides, in pertinent part:
“1. Except as provided in subsections 4 and 5, any person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in this state shall be deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test of his blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood or the presence of a controlled substance when such test is administered at the direction of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance and after such person was arrested for any offense allegedly committed while such person was driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance.
“2. Such person shall be informed that his failure to submit to such test will result in the suspension of his privilege to drive a vehicle for a period of 6 months.”