the BOLA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we must first determine what constitutes substantial evidence to support an administrative agency decision. Relying on §24.7.312, ARM, Village Health argues that, in unemployment compensation hearings, evidence is admissible if reasonable people would rely on it in conducting their serious affairs and that the statutory rules of evidence do not govern. We disagree. As we have previously explained, “[although the Rules of Evidence are generally more relaxed in an administrative proceeding than in a court of law, they are not to be relaxed to the point of disregarding due process of law and the fundamental rights of the individual.” Matter of Teaching Certificate of Thompson (1995), 270 Mont. 419, 427, 893 P.2d 301, 305-06 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, as we explained in Thompson, we
holding that an administrative agencys decision may not be based upon inadmissible expert opinion holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable