500 A.2d 1022 (D.C. 1985), 84-979, McEvily v. District of Columbia Dept. of Employment Services

Docket Nº:84-979.
Citation:500 A.2d 1022
Party Name:Robert E. McEVILY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Intervenor.
Case Date:November 27, 1985
Court:Court of Appeals of Columbia District
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1022

500 A.2d 1022 (D.C. 1985)

Robert E. McEVILY, Petitioner,

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Intervenor.

No. 84-979.

Court of Appeals of Columbia District

November 27, 1985

Argued Sept. 10, 1985.

Peter J. Vangsnes, with whom James F. Green, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioner.

Edward E. Schwab, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Inez Smith Reid, Corp. Counsel, John H. Suda, Principal Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on Memorandum in Lieu of Brief, for respondent.

Patricia A. Brannan, with whom Vincent H. Cohen, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for intervenor.

Before NEBEKER and FERREN, Associate Judges, and PAIR, Senior Judge.

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:

Petitioner Robert E. McEvily appeals a decision of the Department of Employment Services (DOES) denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits. He contends that the Director erred in adopting the conclusion of the hearing examiner that petitioner's depression did not arise out of his employment and consequently should be denied benefits. We disagree and affirm.

Petitioner was employed in the personnel department of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) as head of the employee benefits branch from 1974 until he stopped working on December 1, 1982. Petitioner initially had a positive working experience at WMATA and generally enjoyed a good relationship with his supervisor, the Director of Personnel. In 1980, however, petitioner began to experience frustrations at work after an outside management consultant recommended that several managerial changes be made in the personnel department. Although the consultant's report did not make any negative comments about petitioner's performance, there is some indication that his supervisor resigned as a result of the report.

Subsequent to this reorganization, petitioner reported directly to the Assistant General Manager for Administration, Mrs. Carmen Turner. Although petitioner was not criticized or embarrased by Mrs. Turner, he became frustrated by her failure to respond promptly to his work products and by what he perceived as her inattentiveness to his professional needs. Specifically, petitioner

Page 1023

felt that Mrs. Turner disregarded or forgot to review...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP