Burnice Stackhouse v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 111 A.3d 636

Stackhouse, a DPW sanitation worker, was receiving workers’ compensation for 1993 workplace injuries.
DPW sent notice (regular and certified mail; fax to counsel) requiring a medical exam on Sept. 6, 2012; Stackhouse did not attend and the certified letter was unclaimed.
DPW suspended his benefits after he missed the Sept. 6 exam; Stackhouse later scheduled and attended an exam on Oct. 11, 2012, and benefits were reinstated as of that date.
Stackhouse sought retroactive benefits for the suspension period (Sept. 6–Oct. 11, 2012); ALJ found he had received notice and denied retroactive payment; CRB affirmed.
CRB relied on D.C. Code § 1-623.23(d) and 7 DCMR § 124.9, interpreting the statute to forfeit (not retroactively restore) benefits suspended for failure to submit to an examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant is entitled to retroactive payment of benefits suspended for failing to submit to an ordered medical exam	Stackhouse: “Suspended” means temporary; benefits should be restored for the period because he remained medically eligible	District: Statute and regulation require suspension and deduction of the refusal period; benefits are reinstated only as of compliance date, not retroactively	Court: Affirmed CRB — statute reasonably interpreted to forfeit benefits during refusal period; no retroactive payment
Whether denial of retroactive benefits constitutes an uncompensated Fifth Amendment taking	Stackhouse: Denial of previously accruing benefits is a taking	District: No authority that denying benefits for failure to follow procedural requirements effects a taking	Court: Takings claim not raised below; even if considered, no authority shows constitutional taking; claim rejected

Pierce v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters’ Ret. & Relief Bd., 882 A.2d 199 (D.C. 2005) (deference to agency interpretations of statutes it administers)
Williams v. United States, 878 A.2d 477 (D.C. 2005) (look to federal cases interpreting nearly identical federal statutes)
McCamey v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 947 A.2d 1191 (D.C. 2008) (workers’ comp statutes liberally construed for humanitarian purpose)
Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 83 A.3d 739 (D.C. 2014) (agency interpretation consistent with incentive to cooperate with statutory requirements)
Mason v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 562 A.2d 644 (D.C. 1989) (defer to agency when petitioners and agency make cogent but conflicting statutory constructions)
Hill v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 717 A.2d 909 (D.C. 1998) (requirement to raise claims first before the agency)
Horne v. Department of Agric., 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013) (takings claim can be properly raised before an agency)
Mack v. United States, 6 A.3d 1224 (D.C. 2010) (no serious constitutional doubt warranting rejection of agency interpretation)