95 A.3d 1284
D.C.2014Background
- Claimant (Colicchio Proctor) injured her right knee at work in 1994 and was treated long-term by Dr. John Delahay, who attributed ongoing knee problems at least in part to the work injury.
- DCPS arranged an independent evaluation in 2011 by Dr. Louis Levitt, who concluded claimant’s knee arthritis was degenerative and not caused or accelerated by the 1994 injury.
- In 2012 the Office of Risk Management stopped disability payments; claimant appealed and at hearing the ALJ applied a common-law treating-physician preference and reinstated benefits.
- The Compensation Review Board affirmed the ALJ, applying a treating-physician preference it understood to have been revived by repeal of a 2004 statutory preference.
- DCPS petitioned for review arguing the 2010 repeal eliminated the treating-physician preference; the court reversed the Board, finding legislative history showed the Council intended to eliminate the preference in CMPA public-employee cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 repeal of a statutory treating-physician preference revived the preexisting common-law preference in CMPA cases | Claimant: repeal revived the Kralick common-law rule giving treating physicians deference | DCPS: legislative history shows Council intended to eliminate the preference and treat medical opinions equally | Court: Repeal eliminated the statutory preference; legislative history shows intent to abolish the preference, so the Board erred in reviving the common-law rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Kralick v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 842 A.2d 705 (D.C. 2004) (recognized treating-physician preference applied to CMPA public-employee cases)
- Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 831 A.2d 913 (D.C. 2003) (requirement to address and explain rejection of treating physician testimony)
- Olson v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 736 A.2d 1032 (D.C. 1999) (standards for discounting treating-physician opinion)
- Dobyns v. United States, 30 A.3d 155 (D.C. 2011) (plain-meaning rule and when to consult legislative history)
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751 (D.C. 1983) (statutory interpretation and looking beyond plain meaning when necessary)
- United States Parole Comm’n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084 (D.C. 1997) (presumption against repeal by implication)