the instant case, the Commonwealth Court has been noting the new standard and either applying it directly or remanding for its application. See, e.g., T.T. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 48 A.3d 562 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012); A.S. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, No. 148 C.D. 2012, 2012 WL 8667590 (Pa.Cmwlth. filed 12/14/12); C.H. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, No. 815 C.D.2012, 2012 WL 8681510 (Pa.Cmwlth. filed 11/13/12); D.J. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, No. 1980 C.D.2011, 2012 WL 8699997 (Pa.Cmwlth. filed 9/17/12); J.M. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 52 A.3d 552 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012). 4 . Prior Commonwealth Court decisions have also required only substantial evidence in other administrative cases where loss of reputation and employment were at risk. See, e.g., Boguslawski v. Dep’t of Educ., 837 A.2d 614 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (<HOLDING>); and Ruane v. Shippensburg Univ., 871 A.2d 859
holding that the same inference on the same record as that here was supported by substantial evidence holding that revocation of a teachers certificate for immorality and intemperance was supported by substantial evidence notwithstanding his acquittal on criminal charges for improperly touching a child holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process holding revocation of appellants medical license not barred by previous acquittal on charge of criminal abortion even though criminal charge was basis of license revocation proceeding holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence