supra, 157 N.J. at 474, 724 A.2d 234. Observing that of all the witnesses who testified Samji was the most credible, the ALJ determined that Taylor did strike B.M. We find that determination to be adequately supported by evidence in the record and accordingly sustain it. Our conclusion that the ALJ’s factual findings must be upheld does not end our inquiry. We also consider whether the evidence supports the ALJ’s legal conclusion that Taylor’s conduct constituted “abuse” as defined by DHS, in order to support the sanction of permanent removal from employment. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) (“A recommended report and decision [shall] contain findings of fact and conclusions of law....”). Our review of that determination is de novo. See Mayflower Sec. Co., supra, 64 N.J. at 93, 312 A.2d 497 (<HOLDING>). We are unpersuaded that the ALJ’s conclusion
holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of another issue is dispositive of the appeal holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue