Dist. of D.C. Dep't of Mental Health v. Dist. of D.C. Dep't of Employment Serv.

• Decision Date: 24 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–AA–882.,09–AA–882.
• Citation: 15 A.3d 692
• Parties: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Petitioner,v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

15 A.3d 692

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Petitioner,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 09–AA–882.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued March 10, 2011.Decided March 24, 2011.

Carl J. Schifferle, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia at the time the brief was filed, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for petitioner.Michael A. Milwee, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.Before FISHER and OBERLY, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge.FISHER, Associate Judge:

Following a hearing, the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (“DOES”) awarded temporary total disability benefits to an employee of the Department of Mental Health (“DMH”) who claimed to have been injured on the job. DMH now challenges that decision, contending that DOES never ruled on DMH's motion to dismiss, which asserted that the employee's application for a hearing was untimely filed. DMH also argues that DOES applied the wrong standard of proof in determining that the employee's work activities caused her injury, and that the evidence was insufficient to support that finding. We agree that DOES should have addressed the timeliness argument raised in DMH's motion to dismiss, and should have evaluated the employee's claim under the appropriate standard of proof. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new determination. We do not, therefore, decide whether the evidence would have been sufficient to support a ruling in the employee's favor.

I.

A. Factual Background

From 1974 until 2003, LaJuain Rogers was a food service worker at Saint Elizabeths Hospital. Her job duties included regularly “lift[ing] heavy pots”; “push[ing] large carts”; “wash[ing] dishes, pots, and pans”; setting up for meals; and mopping and sweeping floors. In the 1990s, Ms. Rogers began experiencing intermittent tingling and pain in her arms and hands, “sometimes” staying home from work as a result. In 2001, Dr. Sharon Baratz told Ms. Rogers that she had diabetes, and explained that diabetes could cause the pain in her hand. In April 2003, Dr. Baratz told Ms. Rogers that she had carpal tunnel syndrome.

On May 22, 2003, Ms. Rogers was attempting to lift a heavy pot at work when she experienced pain in her left hand which then shot up her arm. She put the pot down and rested, and then continued to work. A few days later, Ms. Rogers again experienced pain in her left hand and tingling in her left arm when she tried to pick up a heavy pot at work. She went to the Office of Employee Health, where a doctor advised her that she might have carpal tunnel syndrome and that she should seek workers' compensation. Soon thereafter, Ms. Rogers reported her condition to the Disability Compensation Program (“DCP”). ¹

Ms. Rogers began seeing Dr. Hampton Jackson, an orthopedic surgeon, who told her she had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and advised her not to return to work. In October 2003, Dr. Jackson issued a report stating, “[s]ince [Ms. Rogers] cannot use her hand enough for work, it is my opinion that her carpal tunnel syndrome is causally related to her work activities and work injury associated with the accident of 5/22/03.” In February 2005, Dr. Jackson reported that Ms. Rogers “asked me ... was I certain that her carpal tunnel syndrome could come from her diabetes, and I said yes I am.” He continued, however: “There was significant flattening of the nerve and thickening of the transverse carpal ligament. This is of a traumatic origin. There was also tenosynovitis, but the thickened ligament and flattening of the nerve means it was not a metabolic cause; it was a traumatic physical cause of her carpal tunnel syndrome.” In another report issued in July 2005, Dr. Jackson stated, “[c]ertainly my opinion is that [Ms. Rogers] continues to suffer from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that is occupationally related to her job and injury and/or, at least, aggravated by the injury of 5/22/03.”

In August 2003, another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert Smith, conducted an independent medical examination of Ms. Rogers and noted that “[h]er job appears to be quite varied and never involved one specific repetitive activity on a prolonged basis.” Dr. Smith concluded that “it is highly unlikely that Ms. Rogers' complaints of hand pain are related to her job duties” and that “if she does have carpal tunnel syndrome it is more likely related to her diabetes and obesity than any activities performed during her employment.”

A third orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Johnson, conducted an independent medical examination in October 2003. Although Dr. Johnson noted that Ms. Rogers' job activities, “if done repetitively over and beyond what the patient is used to,” could aggravate carpal tunnel syndrome, he ultimately concluded, “[n]evertheless ... I'm hard-pressed to attribute her current carpal tunnel syndrome to these work activities. She has other reasons for carpal tunnel syndrome, namely obesity and diabetes, and these most likely are the proximate cause of her current symptoms.” Dr. Johnson reached the same opinion during a follow-up examination in June 2005. He concluded that, although work activities like those performed by Ms. Rogers “can temporarily render more symptomatic a pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome, ... in this particular case I do not believe that her work activities caused the carpal tunnel syndrome.”

B. The Proceedings Below

The DCP denied Ms. Rogers' disability compensation claim in October 2003. Basing its opinion on the reports of Dr. Smith and Dr. Johnson, the DCP concluded that her condition “was not caused by work-related activities.” It also denied reconsideration of her claim in September 2004. Ms. Rogers then filed a timely application for a formal hearing of her claim with DOES, pursuant to D.C.Code § 1–623.23(b)(1) (2010 Supp.) (requiring that a request for a hearing be made within thirty days after the DCP's decision).

In December 2004, Ms. Rogers voluntarily withdrew that application, and the matter was dismissed without prejudice. She also voluntarily withdrew her second application in June 2005, and the matter was dismissed without prejudice again. In November 2005, Ms. Rogers' third application was dismissed without prejudice because she was not prepared to go forward to a formal hearing. On April 11, 2007, Ms. Rogers filed a fourth application and a formal hearing was scheduled for June 2, 2007.

Prior to the hearing, DMH moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,² arguing that Ms. Rogers' most recent application for a hearing was untimely because it was not filed within a reasonable time after the dismissal of her previous application in 2005. At the hearing, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) heard argument on the motion to dismiss and decided to hold a full hearing “on both the issue of jurisdiction and the merits of the case.” However, the hearing could not be completed that day. When the hearing reconvened on August 29, 2007, Ms. Rogers changed her claim to one for temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits rather than permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits. The ALJ decided to start the hearing over, noting again that he would address the motion to dismiss in his decision.

The ALJ issued his Compensation Order on May 30, 2008, ruling that “there [was] sufficient evidence in the record to establish a causal connection between [Ms. Rogers'] carpal tunnel syndrome and her work activities,” and granting her TTD benefits and causally related medical benefits. The ALJ noted that he gave “more weight” to the opinion of Ms. Rogers' doctor than to the opinions of the two doctors who performed independent medical examinations. The ALJ also stated that Ms. Rogers bore “the burden of producing substantial evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome [was] causally related to her work injury.” He did not mention the motion to dismiss in his order.

On June 30, 2008, DMH filed an application for review with the CRB, arguing, among other things, that the ALJ had failed to address its motion to dismiss. The CRB rejected this argument, concluding that the failure to determine the application's timeliness was not “reversible error” because “[i]t is necessary for a Compensation Order to contain findings of fact on each material, contested factual issue ... [and here] [t]here was no material factual dispute regarding the dates of the [applications] or procedural history of the case.” The CRB also rejected DMH's argument that the evidence did not support the determination that Ms. Rogers' work activities caused her disability, stating, “[w]e have reviewed the record and agree that the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole[.]”

II.

A. Our Standard of Review

We review decisions of the CRB to determine whether they are “[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009); see also McNeal v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 917 A.2d 652, 656 (D.C.2007) (same) (citing D.C.Code § 2–510(a)(3) (2001)). We will “affirm an administrative agency decision when (1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency's conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Georgetown Univ., 971 A.2d at 915; see also D.C.Code § 1–623.28(b) (the CRB's decision “shall be affirmed if supported by substantial competent evidence on the record”). We review an agency's legal rulings de novo, though we “will ordinarily give considerable weight to any reasonable interpretation by the agency of the statute it administers.” Daniel v. District of Columbia Dep't of...