under the substantial evidence test. Dale, ¶22, 188 P.3d at 561. Importantly, our review of any particular decision turns not on whether we agree with the outcome, but on whether the agency could reasonably conclude as it did based on all the evidence before it. Id. We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, and will affirm only if the agency’s conclusions are in accordance with the law. Id., ¶ 26,188 P.3d at 561-62. DISCUSSION [¶ 11] Mr. Herrera contends the OAH’s determination that he was entitled to benefits was supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. He points to his testimony that his physician prescribed Lexapro for pain, numbness and depression. He also points to his testimony that when he stopped ta Div. v. Summers, 987 P.2d 153, 155-56 (Wyo.1999) (<HOLDING>); and Frantz v. Campbell County Memorial Hosp.,
holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion holding the oah erroneously applied the exclusion to a diagnosis given in 1993 before the exclusion was enacted holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding exclusion was harmless error