93 A.3d 678
D.C.2014Background
- Sandoval injured in a March 2011 work-related car accident and sought workers’ compensation for 27% right and 8% left upper-extremity disability.
- ALJ Verma awarded lesser relief after finding insufficient proof of entitlement, despite employer conceding 5% disability in each upper extremity.
- CRB affirmed the ALJ’s order; Sandoval sought judicial review in the DC court.
- During review, Sandoval alleged ALJ Verma lacked current bar admission; Verma reportedly not licensed in DC or any state; he subsequently resigned.
- Intervenors and DOES urged affirmance or limited remand; DOES later moved for a remand with CRB determining the path forward; Sandoval urged a new hearing.
- The court vacated the CRB order and remanded to the CRB to determine, in the first instance, how to proceed and explain its reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ qualifications and validity of rulings | Verma lacked bar licensure; question validity of rulings. | Proceedings preserved by agency and not automatically voided; deference to DOES guidance. | Remand authorized; not automatic invalidation of rulings. |
| Proper remand remedy | Court should remand for a new hearing before a different ALJ. | Remand appropriate to determine proceedings first; new hearing possible. | Remand to CRB to determine how to proceed. |
| Authority to remand under DC APA | Court should oversee corrective action consistent with appellate review. | DC APA permits remand for justice; court should not foreclose agency process. | Court remands; authority acknowledged under DC APA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Hosp. Ctr. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 983 A.2d 961 (D.C.2009) (limits of appellate review of CRB decisions)
- Coleman v. District of Columbia, 80 A.3d 1028 (D.C.2013) (parties’ concessions not determinative; remand considerations)
- V.C.B. v. United States, 37 A.3d 286 (D.C.2012) (treatment of concessions and error correction)
- Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 83 A.3d 739 (D.C.2014) (deference to agency interpretations and procedures)
- Carpenters Indus. Council v. Salazar, 734 F.Supp.2d 126 (D.D.C.2010) (remand when agency raises substantial questions)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S.2009) (governmental authority and jurisdictional validity of agency action)
- Orix Capital Mkts., LLC v. American Realty Trust, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 748 (Tex.App.2011) (collateral challenges to judgments based on qualifications)
- Meza v. Massanari, 199 F.R.D. 573 (S.D.Tex.2001) (collateral attack considerations on administrative rulings)