Mills v. DC DOES
Decision Date | 24 December 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-AA-1223.,02-AA-1223. |
Citation | 838 A.2d 325 |
Parties | Nartausha A. MILLS, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent, Women's National Basketball Association t/a Washington Mystics, et al., Intervenors. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Benjamin T. Boscolo, Greenbelt, MD, for Petitioner.
Clifton M. Mount, for Intervenor, Women's National Basketball Association.
Arabella W. Teal, Interim Corporation Counsel at the time the statement was filed, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel at the time the statement was filed, and Edward E. Schwab, Assistant Corporation Counsel at the time the statement was filed, filed a statement in lieu of brief for Respondent.
Before SCHWELB, FARRELL, and RUIZ, Associate Judges.
On October 11, 2002, the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (DC DOES) affirmed a Compensation Order entered by a DC DOES Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying in pertinent part the claim of Nartausha A. Mills, then a professional basketball player for the Washington Mystics and an employee of the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) (the employer), for temporary total disability benefits. Ms. Mills has filed a petition for review in this court, contending that the Director's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that it is based on an erroneous legal analysis. We vacate the Director's decision and remand for further proceedings.
In April 2000, Ms. Mills, then a student at the University of Alabama, was the second selection in the WNBA draft and was selected by the Mystics. She signed a contract providing that she would play for the Mystics until May 15, 2001. The WNBA's regular season ran from training camp in May 2000 until September 15 of that year. It is undisputed that, during the long off-season from September to May, players in the WNBA had the right to seek employment elsewhere, including the opportunity to play basketball abroad.
On May 17, 2000, while at practice, Ms. Mills suffered an injury to her left hand and wrist when she stretched out her left arm to break a fall. She nevertheless continued to play until mid-August 2000, with a splint protecting her left wrist. On or about August 30, 2000, Ms. Mills had surgery, and her wrist was placed in a cast for three months.
Ms. Mills testified that at some time not identified in the record, her agent had received an oral offer from Urla, a professional basketball team in Turkey,1 inviting her to play for that team during the 2000-01 off-season. Ms. Mills was, however, unable to accept the Turkish team's offer because her injury and operation prevented her from playing. Ms. Mills stated that following her recovery, she did play for Urla during the 2001-02 off-season and earned $50,000.
The employer voluntarily paid Ms. Mills her full salary for the 2000 season. The employer declined, however, to pay her total temporary disability benefits and related medical expenses for the period from September 16, 2000 until May 14, 2001. Ms. Mills then filed a claim for these benefits and expenses pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), D.C.Code §§ 32-1501 et seq. (2001).
The ALJ denied Ms. Mills' claim. The ALJ wrote, in pertinent part:
Remarkably, the ALJ made no reference at all to Ms. Mills' testimony regarding the oral offer from the Turkish club.
The Director of DC DOES affirmed the ALJ's decision, albeit on somewhat different grounds. In the dispositive portion of his decision, the Director wrote:
(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
This petition for review followed.
Our standard of review of agency decisions in workers' compensation cases is governed by the District's Administrative Procedure Act. D.C.Code §§ 2-501, -5105 (2001). See D.C.Code § 32-1522(b)(3) (2001). We must determine first, whether the agency has made a finding of fact on each material contested issue of fact; second, whether the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; and third, whether the Director's conclusions flow rationally from those findings and comport with the applicable law. Ferreira v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 667 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1995); see also Upchurch v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 783 A.2d 623, 626-27 (D.C.2001). "Substantial evidence is `relevant evidence such as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Black v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 801 A.2d 983, 985 (D.C.2002). If the Director's findings are not supported by substantial evidence, they cannot be sustained. Jadallah v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 476 A.2d 671, 676 (D.C.1984).
Our review of the Director's legal conclusions is de novo. Belcon, Inc. v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 826 A.2d 380, 384 (D.C.2003). Recognizing agency expertise, however, we accord great weight to any reasonable construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration. George Hyman Constr. Co. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 497 A.2d 103, 108 (D.C.1985); see also Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965).
The ALJ and the Director each denied relief to Ms. Mills, but on markedly different grounds....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D.C. Appleseed Ctr. for Law & Justice, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Ins.
...by substantial evidence on the record, and the conclusions must rationally flow from the findings. See Mills v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 838 A.2d 325, 328 (D.C.2003). “Substantial evidence is ‘relevant evidence such as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support......
-
Changkit v. Dist. Of D.C. Dep't Of Employment Serv., 08-AA-615.
...conclusions flow rationally from those findings and comport with the applicable law.” Id. ( quoting Mills v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 838 A.2d 325, 327 (D.C.2003)). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to suppo......
- Alston v. US
-
Wmata v. Does
...the Board's conclusions flow rationally from those findings and comport with the applicable law." Mills v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 838 A.2d 325, 327 (D.C.2003); Ferreira v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 667 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1995); see also Lande......
-
DC Register Vol 69, No 34 August 26, 2022 Pages 010709 to 010949
...he had three (3) mixed Vodka drinks. Tr. pg. 160. Employee explained 9 Mills v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 838 A.2d 325 (D.C. 2003) and Black v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 801 A.2d 983 (D.C. 2002). 10 Baumgartner v. Police and Fireme......
-
DC Register Vol 70, No 18 May 5, 2023 Pages 006312 to 006761
...(November 12, 2021). 18 Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition; Mills v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 838 A.2d 325 (D.C. 2003); and Black v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 801 A.2d 983 (D.C. 2002). DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGISTER VOL. 70 - N......
-
DC Register Vol 70, No 9 March 3, 2023 Pages 002646 to 002906
...call as stated in the PCR should have been a “refusal” and not “no 13 Mills v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 838 A.2d 325 (D.C. 2003) and Black v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 801 A.2d 983 (D.C. 2002). 14 Baumgartner v. Police and Firemen......
-
DC Register Vol 70, No 26 June 30, 2023 Pages 009030 to 009406
...Manual and Pre-hospital 27 Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition; Mills v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 838 A.2d 325 (D.C. 2003); and Black v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 801 A.2d 983 (D.C. 2002 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGISTER VOL. 70 - ......