court’s interpretation of the contract provided that it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. 9 109 Nev. 1202, 866 P.2d 262 (1993). 10 Id. at 1209, 866 P.2d at 268. 11 Id. at 1211, 866 P.2d at 269. 12 Id. at 1209, 866 P.2d at 268. 13 Id. at 1211, 866 P.2d at 269 ( he City of Reno’s abandonment did not materially injure the public. 20 Brooks claims that NDOT’s decision to grant him an encroachment permit and its letter stating that he had a valid easement are entitled to deference because NDOT is a state agency. That argument is without merit because NDOT was not making a factual determination that warranted deference. Accordingly, Brooks’ reliance on Rosser v. SIIS to argue that the NDOT decision is entitled to deference is misplaced. 113 Nev. 1125, 1128, 946 P.2d 185, 187 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 21 Because we conclude that Brooks failed to
holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that the district courts apa review of a sba size decision was not entitled to deference but that the agencys interpretation and application of its own regulations did merit deference holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim