relate to the market conduct examination and are dated prior to the issuance of the report, which started the statutory timeframe running. The only two items listed by the Commissioner that did not predate the issuance of the report are the report itself and communications between the Commissioner and First American attempting to schedule a settlement hearing during January 2011. None of these items were necessary for the narrow question of law presented to the trial court for judicial review — whether the Commissioner’s failure to issue its order within the statutory timeframe rendered it void. And, thus, the materials submitted by First American were sufficient for review. See Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. DeKalb Cnty. Surveyor’s Office, 850 N.E.2d 957, 965 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. We, therefore, affirm the
holding that the superior court in reviewing agency action uses the precise scope of review the court of appeals employs in reviewing contested cases recognizing that appellate court is in same position as trial court to assess evidence when all of the proof is contained in the record by deposition holding the materials submitted were sufficient because the record should include all that is necessary in order for the reviewing court to accurately assess the challenged agency action holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal holding that nonenglish materials submitted for review may not be considered during the pretrial process or become part of the record