Cited by

at 496; Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490-91 (1994).

Dell, 140 N.H. at 496; Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490-91 (1994).

Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490-91 (1994); see Appeal of Northern New England Tele.

Our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently than did the CAB, or to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.

derives at least in part from narrative from the patient-petitioner himself, whose *326 credibility is thereby the subject of inquiry.” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 491 (1994).

administrative boards comprised of non-attorney members.” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 492, 642 A.2d 925, 928 (1994).

Although the board is free to weigh the validity of the evidence presented as it deems appropriate, such weighing must be done in the context of the evidence presented, cf. Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490-91, 642 A.2d 925, 927 (1994), and within the dictates regarding the allocation of evidentiary burdens, cf. Appeal of Lalime, 141 N.H. 534, 537, 687 A.2d 994, 997 (1996).

Nowhere does the board say or intimate that the petitioner was not credible or that it disbelieved her testimony.

Nowhere does the board say or intimate that the petitioner was not credible or that it disbelieved his testimony.

We will uphold the findings and rulings of the board “unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by legal error.” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 491, 642 A.2d 925, 928 (1994); see RSA 541:13 (1974).

As with conflicting testimony from distinct witnesses, the board is “free to disregard or accept, in whole or in part,” the expert’s testimony, and we must give the board’s decision great deference.

derives at least in part from narrative *669 from the patient-petitioner himself, whose credibility is thereby the subject of inquiry.” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 491, 642 A.2d 925, 927 (1994).

“Our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently than did the board, or to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490, 642 A.2d 925, 927 (1994) (quotations omitted).

Although Brannan, the petitioner’s treating mental health worker, offered testimony that conflicted with the board’s decision, the board was free to reject this testimony in favor of the testimony of Dr. Weiner.

RSA 541:13 (1974); see Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490, 642 A.2d 925, 927 (1994).

Where, as here, the board was faced with conflicting medical evidence, it was “free to disregard or accept, in whole or in part, that [evidence].” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 491, 642 A.2d 925, 927 (1994).

This is the type of mechanism that could clearly cause a disc protrusion to occur.” Although Dr. Sherwin, solicited by Liberty Mutual for an opinion, stated that the 1992 injury resulted in the need for the 1993 surgery, the board was free to reject that evidence in favor of the conflicting opinion of Dr. Polivy.

We note that this case is distinguishable from Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 642 A.2d 925 (1994), where we deferred to a board ruling that was unsupported by most of the evidence.

*420 “Our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently than did the board, or to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the findings are supqrted by competent evidence in the record.” Appeal of Gamas, 138 N.H. 487, 490, 642 A.2d 925, 927 (1994) (quotation omitted).

As the record supports this conclusion, we will not disturb it.