Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). The Commission assigns little credibility to the testimony of Appellant, which was vague, and exhibited a suspect recall of the underlying events. The Appellant also modified his testimony during the hearing.

L. c. 111, 204(a), which states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the proceedings, reports and records of a medical peer review committee shall be confidential and shall be exempt from the disclosure of public records under section 10 of chapter 66 but shall not be subject to subpoena or discovery, or introduced into evidence, in any judicial or administrative proceeding, except proceedings held by the boards of registration in medicine

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). The Commission finds the testimony of all of the witnesses to be highly credible.

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). Here, the Commission assigns little credibility to the testimony of Appellant. Appellant and his counsel seek to rely on an overly technical, semantic distinction as the basis for this appeal, to wit: whether Appellant was asked during the first interview by Sgt,.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 164-65 (1995); Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commn, 401 Mass. 526, 530-31 (1988); School Comm. of Wellesley v. Labor Relations Commn, 376 Mass. 112, 120 (1978). Applying these principles to the facts of this appeal, Worcester has demonstrated that its promotion of Mr.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 437 Mass. 128, 138 (2002). . In reviewing an agency decision, the Court is required to give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it by statute. M.G.L. c. 30A, 14(7). The Court also accords due weight and deference to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute within its charge.

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). Here, the Commission finds that the testimony of all witnesses to be highly credible. Mr.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). The Appellants testimony that she did not experience a high because she was taking other medications is unconvincing.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). The key witness for the City, Dr. Hamrock testified in a forthright and credible manner. No bias or political motive on the part of City was indicated.

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). Here, the Commission assigns little credibility to the testimony of Appellant and his sole witness, David Johnson, with respect to the incidents in question. Both Appellant and Mr.