With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the hearing officer. Despite the district court’s determination that the hearing officer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, there is substantial evidence to support the administrative decision and no indication that the hearing officer made any errors of law. We conclude that the district court erred in disturbing the decision of the hearing officer, which was supported by substantial evidence. See Torres, 105 Nev. at 560, 779 P.2d at 961. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court and reinstate the decision of the hearing officer. 1 Root also argues that the district court has final appellate jurisdiction over administrative matters. We considered and rejected this argument in the recent case of State, Dep’t Mtr. Veh. v. Bremer, 113 Nev. 805, 942 P.2d 145 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 2 In 1995, NRS 484.382 was revised to

A: holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court
B: holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions
C: holding that there is nothing for a court to review when an agency has never issued a final and binding judgment that has the force of law
D: holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions
B.