This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals C9-95-2253 Patricia Ann Matejka, Relator, vs. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services, Respondent. Filed May 14, 1996 Affirmed Peterson, Judge Department of Human Services File No. C-950010 Jack E. Setterlund, Sullivan & Setterlund, Ltd., 825 Alworth Building, 306 West Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802 (for Relator) Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, Kim Buechel Mesun, Assistant Attorney General 900 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent) Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and Peterson, Judge. Unpublished Opinion PETERSON, Judge (No lower court judge) The Commissioner of the Department of Human Services (DHS) determined that relator Patricia Ann Matejka was a perpetrator of maltreatment of minors and refused to set aside Matejka's disqualification from holding a position allowing direct contact with persons receiving services from programs licensed by the DHS. We affirm. Facts The facts in this case are substantially the same as the facts in Rodne v. Commissioner of Human Services, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Minn. App. May __, 1996), which has been released simultaneously with this opinion. Both cases arise from a January 8, 1995, incident that was investigated by the DHS. We incorporate the facts in Rodne and present additional facts that are relevant only to this case. In the DHS investigation memorandum regarding the January 8, 1995, incident, the DHS determined that Matejka was culpable for neglect by failure to protect children from conditions or actions which imminently and seriously endangered the children's physical and mental health when reasonably able to do so. The memorandum also stated that Matejka had ``actively decided not to notify law enforcement or rescue services of the situation.'' The DHS disqualified Matejka from a position allowing direct contact with persons receiving services from programs provided by DHS. Matejka requested reconsideration of the disqualification. The Department denied Matejka's request to set aside her disqualification. Decision The DHS is not required to conduct a contested case proceeding when an individual requests reconsideration under Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 3b (1994), and it did not do so when Matejka requested reconsideration. Therefore, Matejka's certiorari appeal is before this court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480A.06, subd. 3 (1994) and Minn. Stat. ch. 606 (1994), rather than the administrative procedure act, Minn. Stat. §䅊.63- .69 (1994). On certiorari appeal from a quasi-judicial agency decision that is not subject to the administrative procedure act, we inspect the record to review questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [agency], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it. Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992) (quoting State ex rel. Ging v. Board of Educ., 213 Minn. 550, 571, 7 N.W.2d 544, 556 (1942), overruled on other grounds by Foesch v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 646, 300 Minn. 478, 485, 223 N.W.2d 371, 375 (1974) ). The issues presented by this appeal differ from the issues presented in Rodne because Matejka's request for reconsideration of her notice of disqualification under Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 3b does not claim that the information the Commissioner relied upon is incorrect. Matejka argues that her disqualification should have been set aside because the information relied upon by the Commissioner, even if correct, does not support the determination that she was a perpetrator of maltreatment of minors under Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10e (1994). Matejka contends that her failure to contact law enforcement personnel regarding the missing children does not constitute maltreatment. We disagree. ``Maltreatment'' includes neglect. Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10e(a) (2). ``Neglect'' is defined as failure by a person responsible for a child's care to * * * protect a child from conditions or actions which imminently and seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Id., subd. 2(c). The DHS investigation memorandum demonstrates that Matejka was responsible for the care of several children who were lost in the woods on a bitterly- cold day. The memorandum also demonstrates that Matejka was aware that the clothing the children were wearing was not adequate to protect them from the cold and that the children were lost for several hours. The severe cold, coupled with the children's inadequate clothing, imminently and seriously endangered the children's physical health. Matejka was reasonably able to contact law enforcement personnel to obtain assistance in finding the children. The DHS did not err in concluding that her failure to do so constituted neglect, and was, therefore, maltreatment. Matejka also argues that the Commissioner's decision denying her request to set aside her disqualification because she did not demonstrate that she does not pose a risk of harm to persons served by the DHS is not warranted by the evidence and was arbitrary and unreasonable. A reviewing court will not disturb an administrative agency's decision solely because it does not agree with the determination. Village of Goodview v. Winona Area Indus. Dev. Ass'n, 289 Minn. 378, 381, 184 N.W.2d 662, 664 (1971). A court can only interfere where it appears that the agency has not kept within its jurisdiction, that it has proceeded upon an erroneous theory of law, or that its actions are arbitrary and unreasonable or without adequate support in the record. Id., 184 N.W.2d at 664 (quoting State ex rel. Saari v. State Civil Serv. Bd., 265 Minn. 441, 443, 122 N.W.2d 174, 175-76 (1963) ). Where there is room for two opinions on the matter, such action is not ``arbitrary and capricious,'' even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached. Id., 184 N.W.2d at 664 (quoting Brown v. Wells, 288 Minn. 468, 472, 181 N.W.2d 708, 711 (1970) ). When determining whether an individual poses a risk of harm to persons served by the DHS, the Commissioner shall consider the following: (1) the nature and severity of the disqualifying event; (2) the consequences of the disqualifying event; (3) the number of disqualifying factors or events; (4) the relationship between the disqualification and the health, safety, and rights of persons served by the program, including factors such as: (a) the age and vulnerability of victims at the time of the incident; (b) the harm suffered by a victim; and (c) the similarity between a victim and persons served by the program; (5) the time elapsed without a repeat of the same or similar event; (6) documentation of successful completion of training or rehabilitation pertinent to the incident; and (7) any other information relevant to the reconsideration decision. Minn. R. 9543.3080, subpt. 3(B) (1993); see also Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 3b(b) (when reconsidering a disqualification, Commissioner shall review number of disqualifying events, consequences of events, victim's vulnerability, time elapsed without repeat of similar events, and documentation of training or rehabilitation pertinent to event; Commissioner must give preeminent weight to safety of persons served). Matejka argues that all evidence submitted to the Commissioner, including her excellent record, her acknowledgement of an error in judgment on the day of the incident, and her statement that she is committed to improvement and has a sincere desire to continue to serve troubled youths, clearly demonstrates that she does not pose a risk of harm to persons served by the DHS. The letter informing Matejka that her disqualification had not been set aside states: Taking into account the recency and severity of your maltreatment, the information you submitted did not demonstrate that you do not pose a risk of harm. Therefore, it did not allow a determination that your disqualification should be set aside. This letter demonstrates that the Commissioner considered the required factors when determining whether to set aside Matejka's disqualification. There is evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's determination that there was recent, severe maltreatment. Although there is also evidence in the record indicating that Matejka is not likely to repeat the error in judgment she made in this incident, there is room for two opinions on the question whether Matejka poses a risk of harm to persons served by the DHS. We, therefore, affirm the determination of the Commissioner. Affirmed.