Ware v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
157 A.3d 1275
| D.C. | 2017Background
- petitioner Constance Ware challenges two CRB orders arising from disability and medical benefits reinstatement efforts; no attorney’s fee entitlement during gap period (Sept 24, 2010–Sept 14, 2011) under repealed statute; CRB relied on NOI as the necessary first event to deny fees; NOI issued Aug 30, 2011 during gap; first proceeding denied fees due to gap; second proceeding vacated OHA’s fee award; petition for review filed Dec 1, 2015; court reverses and remands on NOI; decision in first proceeding deemed not properly before court; remand limited to second proceeding only; court ultimately holds CRB erred in identifying NOI as the necessary first event and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NOI was the necessary first event for fees | Ware contends NOI is not a termination decision; not the first event. | District argues NOI constitutes termination decision. | NOI was not the necessary first event; reversed on this ground. |
| Timeliness and tolling of the petition for review in the first proceeding | Petitioner tolls time via reconsideration motions; argues timely review. | Reconsideration tolling does not extend for multiple motions. | Time was not properly tolled for the first proceeding; petitions not timely. |
| Scope of review and remand | Challenge to CRB’s second proceeding, seeking fees; argues proper framework not followed. | Court should defer to CRB decisions; proper first event identified. | Reversed the second proceeding decision and remanded for consistent proceedings. |
| Applicability of the gap-period statute to fee awards | Gap period barred any attorney’s fees. | Fee entitlement arises when statute in effect. | Court did not sustain retroactive fee entitlement; remand addressed NOI issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Geographic Society v. District of Columbia Dept. of Employment Servs., 721 A.2d 618 (D.C. 1998) (agency interpretation must align with statute; not plainly wrong)
- Springer v. District of Columbia Dept. of Employment Servs., 743 A.2d 1213 (D.C. 1999) (agency departure from policy requires reasoned analysis)
- Totz v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm’n, 474 A.2d 827 (D.C. 1984) (time limits for appeals; reconsideration tolling limitations)
- Puckrein v. Jenkins, 884 A.2d 46 (D.C. 2005) (equitable tolling considerations of agency review timing)