District of Columbia Public Schools v. District of Columbia Department of Employee Services, 262 A.3d 213

In 2009 Marsha Karim, a DCPS teacher, injured her right shoulder/arm in a workplace auto accident; she received temporary disability, returned to work, claimed aggravation, then sought a 2014 schedule award for permanent partial disability.
Two medical evaluations conflicted: Karim’s treating physician rated 50% right upper-extremity impairment; an IME found 14% attributable to the work injury (19% minus 5% preexisting).
A DOES ALJ credited a 17% baseline (for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction) and added a 10% increase (2% pain, 4% weakness, 2% endurance, 2% loss of function) tied to loss of rotation and loss of industrial capacity, arriving at 27%; the ALJ also awarded compound interest.
The Compensation Review Board (CRB) affirmed the 27% impairment but reversed the compound-interest award, directing simple interest; ORM then promulgated regulations shifting review of many schedule-award calculations to ORM’s Chief Risk Officer (with further review in Superior Court).
Karim appealed ORM’s computation and the procedural change; DCPS challenged the 10% increase. This court considered three issues: adequacy of the 10% increase, availability of compound interest, and validity/application of ORM’s review regulations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ’s unexplained 10% upward adjustment (from 17% to 27%) was justified	DCPS: the 10% increase is unexplained and not supported by evidence; only 17% is supported	Karim: ALJ properly considered loss of rotation and loss of industrial capacity, and broke the 10% into specific components	Court: Affirmed CRB; 27% flows rationally from findings and is supported by substantial evidence
Whether the ALJ could award compound interest on the benefits	Karim: ALJ had equitable/common-law authority to award compound interest	DCPS: statute and precedent do not authorize compound interest; agencies lack free equitable powers; regulations limit awards to simple interest	Court: ALJs/CRB may not award compound interest here; simple interest only; agency/regulatory and statutory context foreclose compounding
Whether ORM’s regulations divesting ALJ/CRB review of certain schedule-award computations are valid and applicable to Karim	Karim: ORM exceeded authority under the CMPA and cannot retroactively strip DOES review; applying the rules to her causes manifest injustice	DCPS/ORM: ORM’s rules are within authority and provide the proper review path (Chief Risk Officer, then Superior Court); Frazier controls	Court: Bound by Frazier to uphold ORM rules; ALJ/CRB lacked authority to review Chief Risk Officer’s computation; no manifest injustice shown

Frazier v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 229 A.3d 131 (D.C. 2020) (upholding ORM regulations shifting review of many schedule-award denials to ORM Chief Risk Officer and Superior Court)
Cherokee Nation v. United States, 270 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1926) (historical rule: compound interest not allowed absent statute or contract)
U.S. Mortg. Co. v. Sperry, 138 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1891) (same principle on interest computation)
Jones v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 41 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (remand where ALJ’s impairment rationale was indecipherable)
Bowles v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 121 A.3d 1264 (D.C. 2015) (remand where ALJ’s arithmetic and reasoning for impairment award were internally inconsistent)
Ramos v. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 601 A.2d 1069 (D.C. 1992) (administrative agencies have limited statutory/regulatory powers and lack general equitable powers)
District of Columbia Office of Tax & Rev. v. Shuman, 82 A.3d 58 (D.C. 2013) (agencies may not act beyond statutory authority)
District of Columbia Pub. Schs. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 123 A.3d 947 (D.C. 2015) (CMPA permits interest on awards but does not confer broad equitable power to agencies to award compound interest)