(2) was in excess of statutory authority; (3) was issued on unlawful procedure; or (4) is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” In general, we have granted administrative bodies a great deal of deference, both in regard to their findings of fact and to their interpretations of their governing statutes and regulations. “[W]e will not set aside an administrative agency’s findings unless clearly erroneous. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and exclude any modifying evidence. So long as the findings are supported by credible evidence, we will not disturb them.” Bigelow v. Dep’t of Taxes, 163 Vt. 33, 35, 652 A.2d 985, 986-87 (1994) (citations omitted); see also In re AssureCare of Vt. Inc., 165 Vt. 535, 538, 686 A.2d 959, 961 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Decisions of the Commissioner are therefore
holding that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the citizens of minnesota from those who pose a severe threat to their health and safety citation omitted internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that absent compelling indication of error we will not disturb boards interpretation of statutes within its particular area of expertise holding that the decisions of administrative agencies of the state described by article vi section 29 of the constitution of new mexico include regulations adopted by a board emphasis added internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that our standard of review for decisions of the health care authority board  predecessor to the division  is very narrow and that we will not disturb the boards statutory interpretations absent a compelling indication of error internal quotation marks and citations omitted recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted