Carden v. D.C. DOES, 19-AA-1143

Carden injured her right shoulder on October 30, 2015 in the District of Columbia while working as a tour bus operator and was medically restricted from overhead reaching, lifting >10 lbs, and repetitive right-arm use.
At injury she lived in Fredericksburg, VA, but moved in May 2016 back to her permanent hometown, Scottsburg, VA (~200 miles away), because she could not pay rent and was unemployed.
She retrained and began working on August 28, 2017 as an IT help-desk technician in Virginia, earning less than her pre-injury wage (ongoing partial wage loss).
Intervenor/insurer provided voluntary TTD/TPD payments for some period but later filed a Notice of Controversion and ceased benefits, alleging Carden failed to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation and voluntarily limited her income.
A vocational counselor provided job leads in D.C./Northern Virginia (about 200 miles away); Carden did not pursue them, citing the risk that long interviews would jeopardize her current job.
The ALJ reinstated partial benefits, finding Carden moved for financial reasons, moved only once, and that the relevant labor market was around Scottsburg; the CRB reversed; this court vacated the CRB and remanded.

Issue	Carden's Argument	Intervenor's Argument	Held
Whether Carden voluntarily limited her income by refusing vocational rehab leads	Carden argues she had legitimate financial reasons for relocating, sought work, and reasonably refused distant interviews that would endanger her new job	Intervenor contends Carden unreasonably refused suitable employment and vocational rehab, justifying suspension of benefits	ALJ’s finding that Carden did not voluntarily limit income was supported by substantial evidence; appellate court upheld that conclusion on record and remanded CRB’s reversal
Proper geographic scope of the relevant labor market for suitable employment	Carden argues the relevant market is where she now resides (Scottsburg area) given her one-time, economically compelled move and local job availability	Intervenor argues Joyner establishes the D.C. metropolitan area is the default relevant labor market because the injury occurred in D.C.	Court held Joyner does not mandate an inflexible D.C.-only rule; ALJ permissibly considered factors (legitimacy of move, duration, job availability) and CRB’s categorical rejection was arbitrary — vacated and remanded

Joyner v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 502 A.2d 1027 (D.C. 1986) (endorsing agency default to D.C. labor market but recognizing exceptions for compelled or health-related relocations)
See v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 1994) (LHWCA framework: where a move is for legitimate economic reasons, the claimant’s present market is generally relevant unless the move is to a severely depressed or impracticably distant area)
Wood v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 112 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 1997) (endorsing See and presuming claimant’s chosen community as proper for earning-capacity inquiry; employer bears burden to show relocation unjustified)
Hensley v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 49 A.3d 1195 (D.C. 2012) (standards for appellate review of CRB findings and ALJ determinations)
Ferreira v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 667 A.2d 310 (D.C. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
Office of People’s Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 610 A.2d 240 (D.C. 1992) (agency must provide reasoned explanation when departing from prior policy)
ABM Onsite Servs.-West, Inc. v. NLRB, 849 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (an agency cannot deviate from precedent without reasoned explanation)