With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The APD simply provided no support for the broad assertion that it was more qualified to determine the credibility of a developmentally disabled individual, and we have found no authority holding that an agency can make a credibility de termination based on the characteristics of the witness. If there were such an exception, the permutations credibility determination and resulted in new factual findings relating to Bridlewood’s post-incident conduct. This constitutes reversible error, see Heifetz, 475 So.2d at 1282; Rogers, 920 So.2d at 31, and we reject any argument that the APD was justified in its action because it was merely rejecting or modifying a conclusion of law, see Pillsbury v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 744 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). We therefore reverse the final order revoking

A: holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact
B: holding that the mere fact that a factual determination is labeled a conclusion of law does not make it so and that an agency cannot avoid its obligation to honor an aljs findings of fact by attempting to categorize them as such
C: holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids
D: recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings
B.