With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supra, 157 N.J. at 474, 724 A.2d 234. Observing that of all the witnesses who testified Samji was the most credible, the ALJ determined that Taylor did strike B.M. We find that determination to be adequately supported by evidence in the record and accordingly sustain it. Our conclusion that the ALJ’s factual findings must be upheld does not end our inquiry. We also consider whether the evidence supports the ALJ’s legal conclusion that Taylor’s conduct constituted “abuse” as defined by DHS, in order to support the sanction of permanent removal from employment. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) (“A recommended report and decision [shall] contain findings of fact and conclusions of law....”). Our review of that determination is de novo. See Mayflower Sec. Co., supra, 64 N.J. at 93, 312 A.2d 497 (<HOLDING>). We are unpersuaded that the ALJ’s conclusion

A: holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision
B: holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue
C: holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of another issue is dispositive of the appeal
D: holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal
B.