Murchison v. DC DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS

Citation813 A.2d 203
Decision Date31 December 2002
Docket NumberNo. 00-CV-200.,00-CV-200.
PartiesBonnie MURCHISON, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Bonnie Murchison, pro se.

Robert R. Rigsby, Corporation Counsel at the time the brief was filed, with whom Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Sheila Kaplan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, were on the brief for appellee.

Before FARRELL and GLICKMAN, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) reversed a decision of the District of Columbia Department of Public Works terminating Bonnie Murchison's employment because of her unexcused absences from work. The Department appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the OEA and reinstated Murchison's termination. Murchison appeals that decision to this court. We reverse and remand for further factual findings by the OEA.

I.

Murchison was employed by the Department of Public Works as a clerical assistant. The Department decided to remove her from its service because she was absent from work without leave for seven consecutive weeks. After an evidentiary hearing, an OEA administrative judge reversed the Department on the ground that Murchison's absence was excused by illness. According to her written decision, the administrative judge credited Murchison's testimony that a certain "smell in the air" at her workplace, wafting over from a nearby sewage treatment plant, exacerbated her chronic sinusitis (i.e., inflammation of a nasal sinus) and caused her to experience nausea and dehydration. The administrative judge found that Murchison had corroborated her testimony with reports from her physician verifying that he had examined her for sinusitis on two occasions during the period she was absent from work. On the Department's petition for review, the full OEA affirmed. While it agreed with the Department's position that an illness must be incapacitating to excuse an extended absence from work without leave,1 the OEA nonetheless deemed it sufficient that Murchison proved that she had "a legitimate medical illness."

The Department appealed to the Superior Court. See D.C.Code § 1-606.3(d) (1999)2 and Super. Ct. Agency Rev. R. 1.3 The court reversed because the administrative record before it contained no substantial evidence and no finding that Murchison's aggravated sinus condition was so debilitating that it prevented her from performing her clerical duties.

II.

Although the initial review of the OEA's decision was in Superior Court, on appeal our scope of review is "precisely the same" as in administrative appeals that come to us directly. Stokes v. District of Columbia, 502 A.2d 1006, 1010 (D.C.1985). To pass muster, an administrative agency decision must state findings of fact on each material, contested factual issue; those findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the agency record; and the agency's conclusions of law must follow rationally from its findings. See Jimenez v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 701 A.2d 837, 838-39 (D.C.1997)

; D.C.Code §§ 2-509(e), -510(a)(3) (2001). Judicial review is limited to the administrative record.

We have no hesitation in agreeing with the Department of Public Works and the Superior Court that, in the administrative record now before us, substantial evidence is lacking to support any finding that Murchison was incapacitated by her sinus condition. The physician's reports that Murchison submitted did not address the severity of her sinusitis or the extent to which it was exacerbated by her working conditions. While Murchison's physician recommended that she "avoid dust/fumes and respiratory irritants," he also pronounced her able to return to duty and stated that he was "uncertain" whether she had a work-related disability. More than this was called for to excuse seven weeks of absence without leave.

The record before us is incomplete, however. The OEA administrative judge based her decision primarily on Murchison's testimony, not on Murchison's medical reports. But no transcript or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Walker v. Office of the Chief Info. Tech. Officer
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • November 25, 2015
    ...Johnson v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 912 A.2d 1181, 1183 (D.C.2006) (quoting Murchison v. District of Columbia Dep't of Pub. Works, 813 A.2d 203, 205 (D.C.2002) ). We "must affirm the OEA's decision so long as it is supported by substantial evidence in the record and othe......
  • Burton v. Office of Employee Appeals, s. 09–CV–1493
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 2011
    ...Johnson v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 912 A.2d 1181, 1183 (D.C.2006) (quoting Murchison v. District of Columbia Dep't of Public Works, 813 A.2d 203, 205 (D.C.2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e must affirm the OEA's decision so long as it is supported by s......
  • In re Columbia
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2021
  • 1303 Clifton St., LLC v. Dist. of Columbia, 10–CV–404.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2012
    ...of issues that have been placed within the special competence of CASD. See Murchison v. District of Columbia Dep't of Pub. Works, 813 A.2d 203, 206 (D.C.2002) (remanding to Superior Court with directions to remand to administrative body to make factual determinations); Grillo v. District of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT