Jacqueline Dent v. DOES/Providence Hospital Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
158 A.3d 886
D.C.2017Background
- Petitioner Jacqueline Dent injured her right shoulder at work in 2001, continued full-time employment (including overtime) for ~10 years, and sought a schedule award for permanent partial disability.
- Medical opinions conflicted: treating and one expert (Dr. Fechter) rated ~23% impairment; employer evaluators (Drs. Hughes, Danziger) found 5% or no lingering impairment.
- ALJ found Dent reached maximum medical improvement, credited the 5% impairment but concluded there was no permanent partial disability because there was no demonstrated loss of wage-earning capacity and Dent lacked credibility and contemporaneous medical records of continued shoulder treatment.
- The D.C. Compensation Review Board (CRB) affirmed, holding that evidence of actual wage loss (or its absence) may be considered insofar as it correlates with economic impairment and that continued medical care is a relevant credibility/merits factor.
- On review, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the CRB, holding the CRB’s interpretation—allowing consideration of wage history as one factor in assessing the percentage loss of use for schedule awards—is reasonable and entitled to deference; it also upheld consideration of post-injury medical treatment and the ALJ’s credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual wage loss (or lack thereof) may be considered in awarding schedule benefits for permanent partial disability | Dent: Smith requires schedule awards without regard to proof of wage loss; ALJ erred by relying on absence of wage loss | Employer/CRB: Wage history is relevant evidence of economic impairment and may inform the ALJ’s prediction of future wage-earning capacity | Court: Affirmed CRB — wage loss (or absence) is a permissible, non‑mandatory factor when determining percentage loss of use for schedule awards under the D.C. WCA |
| Whether absence/character of continuing medical care may be weighed in assessing disability | Dent: Continuing treatment is not required to prove permanence; absence of records cannot defeat award | CRB/Employer: Frequency and character of care are probative of severity and credibility | Court: ALJ appropriately considered lack of supporting medical records as relevant to credibility and severity; CRB properly affirmed |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence | Dent: CRB failed to properly review for substantial evidence and improperly deferred to ALJ | CRB/Employer: Deference is owed to factfinder on credibility; ALJ pointed to concrete inconsistencies | Court: ALJ’s credibility finding was supported by specific, reviewable evidentiary bases; CRB’s review was adequate |
| Whether CRB’s departure from earlier agency ruling (Corrigan) was permissible | Dent: CRB’s current approach conflicts with Corrigan’s categorical ban on wage evidence | CRB/Govt: Corrigan is inconsistent with D.C. case law (e.g., Jones) and statutory purpose; CRB may change position | Court: CRB reasonably abandoned Corrigan; its interpretation is entitled to deference and is consistent with the statute’s economic focus |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 548 A.2d 95 (D.C. 1988) (schedule awards compensate economic impairment, not merely physical impairment)
- Jones v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 41 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (ALJ’s disability determination may consider economic factors and wage loss evidence; remand where methodology unexplained)
- Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 449 U.S. 268 (1980) (discusses distinction between schedule and non-schedule awards; historically treated wage-loss evidence as irrelevant to scheduled-member awards)
- DeShazo v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 638 A.2d 1152 (D.C. 1994) (explains scheduled benefits are an anticipatory/arbitrary compensation for expected wage loss)
- Negussie v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 915 A.2d 391 (D.C. 2007) (disability is an economic/legal concept; ALJs have discretion and should not be bound by medical impairment ratings)
- M.C. Dean, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 146 A.3d 67 (D.C. 2016) (limits Maryland five-factor considerations to economic wage-earning capacity, excluding personal/social life impairments)