Providence Hospital v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and Bonnie Poznanski
163 A.3d 115
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Bonnie Poznanski, a concurrent employee of Providence Hospital (full‑time) and BWMC (part‑time), sustained a work-related left‑shoulder aggravation on April 3, 2013 during an altercation at Providence.
- She had a preexisting December 6, 2011 left‑shoulder work injury with work restrictions; both employers had accommodated those restrictions to varying degrees.
- After April 3, 2013, BWMC could not accommodate her restrictions and Dr. David Johnson restricted her from all BWMC work; she returned to modified duty at Providence in June 2013.
- In July 2013 she suffered a separate right‑shoulder event while lifting at Providence; while treating that shoulder her left shoulder worsened, and Providence ultimately could not accommodate her modified duties.
- The CRB awarded temporary total benefits for lost BWMC earnings and temporary partial benefits for Providence wages; Providence challenged (1) whether one injury can support both temporary total and partial awards across concurrent employers, (2) whether the CRB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and (3) whether Poznanski voluntarily limited her income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Poznanski) | Defendant's Argument (Providence) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a single work injury produce differing temporary disability awards across concurrent employers? | A single injury can yield separate awards tied to distinct jobs/earnings; no authority forbids it. | A single injury should not produce multiple, inconsistent temporary awards. | Yes. A single injury may produce differing temporary awards when concurrent employment produces different effects on separate wages. |
| Did the CRB have substantial evidence and lawful reasoning to support its awards? | The CRB’s findings (medical restrictions, availability of work) were supported and flow logically. | CRB erred by not treating the July 2013 event as severing liability or altering compensation analysis. | Affirmed. The July 2013 event did not increase the compensable disability and omission was harmless; findings were supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did Providence prove Poznanski voluntarily limited her income (i.e., that suitable work was actually available)? | Employer must prove actual availability of suitable jobs; Providence did not meet that burden. | Dr. Johnson’s restriction was risk‑based and, with reduced hours, Poznanski could work — so she voluntarily limited income. | Providence failed to prove actual job availability; the ALJ’s crediting of Poznanski’s testimony that BWMC had no suitable work was upheld. |
| Did the July 2013 right‑shoulder event sever liability or materially change award analysis? | The July event did not materially increase the disability tied to the April injury; same restrictions applied. | A subsequent injury to a preexisting condition should be considered as sole cause or require reallocation of liability. | The July event did not increase disability for compensation purposes; prior precedent on subsequent injuries (special‑fund issues) was distinguishable and CRB’s omission was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 805 A.2d 237 (D.C. 2002) (burden‑shifting framework on inability to perform usual job and employer’s proof of available work)
- Ferreira v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 667 A.2d 310 (D.C. 1995) (standard for substantial evidence review of CRB factual findings)
- Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 704 A.2d 295 (D.C. 1997) (treatment of subsequent injury to preexisting condition in relation to employer liability and special fund)
- Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 830 A.2d 865 (D.C. 2003) (clarifies liability when subsequent injury causes substantially greater disability)
- Joyner v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 502 A.2d 1027 (D.C. 1986) (job‑availability inquiry: what claimant can do and whether such jobs are reasonably available)
- Washington Post v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 675 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1996) (employer must prove jobs are in fact available)