Vernice Bowles v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 121 A.3d 1264

Vernice Bowles injured her right knee at work in 2008; underwent partial lateral meniscectomy and later claimed a 42% permanent partial disability (PPD) to her right leg based on Dr. Phillips’s AMA-Guides-based evaluation.
She also suffered a separate 2011 workplace knee sprain; DOES earlier found that 2011 incident did not negate causal connection to the 2008 injury.
ALJ held the 2008 injury was causally related to Bowles’s permanent impairment but awarded only a 10% PPD, explaining the award as based on a mix of factors (surgery-related impairment, pain, atrophy, and zero wage-loss potential) without quantifying how those components produced 10%.
ALJ discounted parts of Dr. Phillips’s 42% rating in part by consulting the AMA Guides (Fifth Edition) directly, but the AMA Guides were not admitted into the record.
The CRB acknowledged the ALJ erred by taking official notice of the AMA Guides without offering parties a chance to rebut, but deemed the error harmless and affirmed the 10% award.
The D.C. Court of Appeals granted Bowles’s petition, vacated the CRB decision, and remanded because the ALJ’s PPD calculation lacked the required explanatory detail and the harmlessness of taking notice could not be assessed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ’s 10% PPD award is supported by substantial evidence	Bowles: ALJ failed to explain how factors (impairment, pain, atrophy, wage loss) were quantified to reach 10%—decision is unreviewable	DOES/CRB: Record supports discounting Dr. Phillips and sustaining a lower rating; ALJ’s conclusion was reasonable	Court: ALJ’s explanation is insufficient; court cannot discern how 10% was calculated; remand required
Whether ALJ’s use of the AMA Guides (not admitted into evidence) was harmless error	Bowles: ALJ improperly relied on material outside the record and parties lacked chance to rebut	DOES/CRB: Any misuse was harmless because the ALJ also relied on record evidence (Dr. Meyer’s findings and claimant testimony)	Court: Cannot determine harmlessness because ALJ’s unexplained 10% calculation prevents meaningful review; remand required

SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (agency must set forth clear rationale for decision)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (court cannot supply agency’s missing rationale; must remand)
Washington Pub. Interest Org. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 393 A.2d 71 (D.C. 1978) (agencies with technical expertise must explain decisions with precision)
Jones v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 41 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (ALJ must explain how disability percentage was determined to permit review)
Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909 (D.C. 2009) (standards for affirming agency findings)
Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 929 A.2d 865 (D.C. 2007) (harmless-error review in agency context)