Jones v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 149
D.C.2012Background
- Carolyn Jones sought review of DOES CRB's affirmation of an ALJ's 7% permanent partial disability award for a left-leg injury from a fall while working as a part-time usher at the DC Armory/RFK Stadium.
- Treating physician opined 20% impairment; an independent IME opined 6% impairment; DCP settled on a 13% impairment, essentially splitting the difference.
- ALJ found Jones had reached maximum medical improvement with 6% physical impairment but awarded 7% disability, considering economic wage-loss factors.
- CRB affirmed the ALJ, noting the treating physician's testimony can be overridden when credibility and substantial evidence support the IME and that legal consideration of disability is an economic determination.
- Court notes the disability determination is a predictive, policy-based economic assessment, not a pure medical diagnosis, and emphasizes that the ALJ must articulate reasons linking facts to the law.
- The court remands because the ALJ did not provide sufficient explanation to allow meaningful review of how the 7% figure was derived from the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ's 7% disability award is supported by substantial evidence and properly reasoned | Jones argues the record lacks rational support for 7% and that the ALJ failed to apply the law to the record as a whole. | DOES/ALJ contends the decision reflects credibility determinations and proper consideration of wage loss. | Remand required for additional factual findings and rationalized legal conclusions. |
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed the treating physician against the IME and explained rejection of the treating physician | Jones contends the treating physician should be preferred absent proper justification to discount his opinion. | ALJ may credit the IME when supported by record facts and AMA guides; reasons need not mirror treating physician. | Court cannot determine sufficiency of reasoning from the current record; remand so the ALJ can provide explicit findings. |
| Whether the ALJ adequately applied law to the entirety of the record and considered economic wage-loss implications | Jones claims the ALJ's legal application is incongruent with the record and that wage-loss effects were not properly integrated. | ALJ recognized disability is an economic concept and applied relevant facts to the law. | Remand to permit complete, reasoned analysis linking facts to the 7% award. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Clair v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 658 A.2d 1040 (D.C.1995) (limits judicial review to whether agency decision is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence)
- Washington Metro Area Trans. Auth. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 683 A.2d 470 (D.C.1996) (requires rational connection between facts and agency conclusions; deference to agency but reviewable)
- Gary v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 723 A.2d 1205 (D.C.1998) (discusses reviewing court’s role when substantial evidence supports findings)
- Negussie v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 915 A.2d 391 (D.C.2007) (disability is an economic concept; applied in evaluating wage-loss considerations)
- Stewart v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 606 A.2d 1350 (D.C.1992) (attending physicians are ordinarily preferred, but treating testimony may be rejected with justification)
- Smith v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp’t Servs., 548 A.2d 95 (D.C.1988) (acknowledges that schedule award figures can be characterized as arbitrary; emphasizes discretion)
- Upchurch v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp’t Servs., 783 A.2d 623 (D.C.2001) (discusses balancing physical impairment with wage-loss considerations in disability determinations)
- Jones v. United States, not applicable () (Note: placeholder for related Johnson line of cases cited in opinion; omitted official citation if unavailable)