Wmata v. District of Columbia Does
| Decision Date | 01 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-AA-888.,07-AA-888. |
| Citation | 981 A.2d 1216 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent, and Kelly Millhouse, Intervenor. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Sarah O. Rollman, with whom Carol B. O'Keeffe and Mark F. Sullivan, were on the brief, for petitioner.
Peter J. Nickles, Interim Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General, and Pastell Vann, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed a statement in lieu of a brief, for respondent.
Eric M. May, Washington, DC, for intervenor.
Before RUIZ, FISHER and BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judges.
Petitioner seeks reversal of a decision of the Compensation Review Board (CRB) of the D.C. Department of Employment Services (DOES) which affirmed the Compensation Order of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Terri Thompson Mallett awarding temporary total disability benefits to intervenor, Kelly Millhouse. We agree with the CRB's interpretation that the workers' compensation statute's one-year limitation on requests for modification did not bar claimant's timely filed new claim even if benefits had previously been awarded with respect to the same work-related accident, but for a different injury. We therefore affirm the decision of the CRB.
On July 14, 1993, Ms. Millhouse injured her back while taking part in a physical agility test, a test necessary for her to be considered for a promotion to the position of revenue attendant with her employer, petitioner Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). Millhouse v. WMATA (Millhouse I), No. 95-348, slip op. at 3 (Hearings & Adjudications Section, Dec. 1, 1995), available at 1995 DC Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 45. Ms. Millhouse was unable to work from July 29, 1995, through September 10, 1995, during which time she underwent surgery to correct the herniation of three of her lumbar discs. See id. The ALJ determined that this injury occurred in the course of her employment with WMATA, and she was awarded medical expenses as well as temporary total disability benefits until she returned to work. See id. at 7.
Since then, Ms. Millhouse has filed two applications for formal hearings. The first, on or about February 9, 1996, was resolved by the parties without a hearing. Millhouse v. WMATA (Millhouse II), No. 95-348B, slip op. at 2 (Administrative Hearings Division, Aug. 16, 2006), available at 2006 DC Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 292. Ten years later, on April 10, 2006, she filed a claim for a new injury she said was caused by her accident at work on July 14, 1993.1 Id. Ms. Millhouse was again awarded temporary total disability benefits, from March 9, 2006, to the present and continuing, in a compensation order, see Millhouse II, slip op. at 2, 6, which the CRB affirmed. See Millhouse v. WMATA (Millhouse III), No. 06-085, slip op. at 7 (Compensation Review Board July 20, 2007), available at 2007 DC Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 293, 2007 WL 2350166.
Petitioner does not contest that claimant's current disability was caused by the 1993 work injury. The sole issue before the CRB, and the one now before us, is whether, under the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1979, D.C.Code § 32-1501(2001) ("the Act"), a claimant may initiate a new claim for disability benefits for a new injury that arises from a work-related accident for which a claim had previously been filed, or whether a claimant is restricted to filing a claim for modification pursuant to D.C.Code § 32-1524 (2001), formerly D.C.Code § 36-324 (1981), which imposes a one-year limitation from either the date of the last payment of compensation or the rejection of a claim. We agree with the CRB that where a claimant files a new claim, he or she is not subject to the one-year limitation on requests for modification. Rather, pursuant to D.C.Code § 32-1514 (2001), formerly D.C.Code § 36-314 (1981), a claimant may file a new claim so long as that claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata and otherwise complies with the timeliness requirements set forth in that section.
This court must affirm an agency's decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." D.C.Code § 2-510(a)(3)(A) (2001). "We ... defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute ... it is charged with implementing if it is reasonable in light of the language of the statute ..., the legislative history, and judicial precedent." Travelers Indemnity Co. of Ill. v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 975 A.2d 823, 826 (D.C.2009) (citing WMATA v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 825 A.2d 292, 294 (D.C.2003)). The legislative history makes clear that "the workers' compensation statutes should be liberally construed to achieve their humanitarian purpose." Vieira v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 721 A.2d 579, 584 (D.C.1998).
In affirming the ALJ's Compensation Order, the CRB concluded that "because [claimant did] not seek modification of the prior award ... [the one-year limitation in section 32-1524] does not apply." Millhouse III, slip op. at 4, 2007 WL 2350166, at *3. As the CRB clarified in a subsequent decision, "the Act creates a specific procedure to revisit issues previously decided by a compensation order," and affirmed an ALJ's award of benefits to a claimant who had "developed a new symptom ... causally related to his work injury and [had] ma[de] a new claim for medical treatment to address a new disabling condition that was not `previously decided.'" Hartgrove v. Aramark Corp., No. 09-015, slip op. at 9-10 (Compensation Review Board January 26, 2009), available at 2009 DC Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 6, 2009 WL 345797 at *3. Specifically, the CRB was "of the opinion that Petitioner's request for medical treatment in the instant matter constitutes a new claim and thus is not a request to modify the prior Compensation Order." Id.
WMATA argues that the CRB's interpretation is wrong, and that our decision in Short v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 723 A.2d 845 (D.C.1998), and subsequent cases require application of the one-year limitation for modifications of awards set out in D.C.Code § 32-1524 to any further claim for disability benefits following an accident at work where a compensation claim has already been made and adjudicated. WMATA's position, in other words, is that section 32-1524 provides "the sole remedy where an employee seeks reinstatement of the same type of benefits previously awarded due to a new period of disability."
Section 32-1524, provides:
(a) At any time prior to 1 year after the date of the last payment of compensation or at any time prior to 1 year after the rejection of a claim, provided, however, that in the case of a claim filed pursuant to § 32-1508(3)(V) [for schedule awards] the time period shall be at any time prior to 3 years after the date of the last payment of compensation or at any time prior to 3 years after the rejection of a claim, the Mayor may, upon his own initiative or upon application of a party in interest, order a review of a compensation case pursuant to the procedures provided in § 32-1520 where there is reason to believe that a change in conditions has occurred which raises issues concerning:
(1) The fact or the degree of disability or the amount of compensation payable pursuant thereto; or
(2) The fact of eligibility or the amount of compensation payable pursuant to § 32-1509.
(b) A review ordered pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be limited solely to new evidence which directly addresses the alleged change of conditions.
(c) Upon the completion of a review conducted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Mayor shall issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation previously paid, or award compensation....
(d) A compensation order issued pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall be reviewable pursuant to § 32-1522.
We reject WMATA's contention as an unduly narrow reading of section 32-1524. Its interpretation essentially reads section 32-1524 as a time cap on workers' claims for benefits. But, as our cases make clear, section 32-1524 was not intended as a restrictive provision. Rather, consistent with the Act's humanitarian purpose, that section creates an exception to principles of claim and issue preclusion and provides a procedure that enables claimants to revisit compensation awards. See White v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 793 A.2d 1255, 1259 (D.C.2002) .
Moreover, WMATA's argument is inconsistent with the CRB's reasonable interpretation of the statute, to which we owe deference, and is not supported by the legislative history of the Act. Instead, we hold that pursuant to section 32-1514, claimant had one-year, following the time she first became aware, or should have become aware, of her injury, to file a new claim for compensation benefits.2
Our analysis begins with the cases that have addressed the modification provision, section 32-1524. In Short, we considered whether a request for modification pursuant to this section was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. 723 A.2d at 847. That doctrine precludes the relitigation, between the same parties, of a claim that has ... [the relitigation, between the same parties, of a claim that has] previously been finally adjudicated on the merits. See Walden v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., 759 A.2d 186, 189 (D.C.2000). Res judicata is applicable to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs.
...should have affirmed her award of permanent partial disability benefits even though her right to receive benefits remained in suspension. 45.WMATA v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 981 A.2d 1216, 1219–20 (D.C.2009); see also Walden v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs.,......
-
Savoy v. U.S., No. 06-CF-1605.
... ... UNITED STATES, Appellee ... No. 06-CF-1605 ... District of Columbia Court of Appeals ... Argued May 21, 2008 ... Decided October ... The first element does not require the explicit language found in this case ("You know me. I'm ... ...