eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – August 2023 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

LaPrince v. Comcast Corp.
DC CRB
No. 23-013

Decided May 18, 2023.

DC Code §32-1505(b) bars entitlement to additional payment of TTD and PPD scheduled member benefits where Claimant sought payment of those benefits more than three years after the last payment of compensation.

Background

Claimant sustained a compensable work injury. Employer paid a period of TTD and medical benefits, but terminated TTD benefits on May 17, 21018 by filing a Notice of Controversion stating that continuing disability was contested. Claimant sought payment of benefits via Informal Conference, and a Memorandum of Informal Conference was issued on December 21, 2018 awarding payment of additional TTD benefits, which was rejected by the Employer. The Employer filed an application for Formal Hearing. On May 21, 2019 the application for Formal Hearing was withdrawn, after the Employer advised the Claimant that no further benefits would be paid. On September 4, 2019 another Informal Conference was held to address a request for change of treating physician. On May 24, 2022 Claimant filed an application for Informal Conference seeking payment of TTD benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and medical expenses. The parties cross filed applications for Formal Hearing. After a Formal Hearing, the ALJ concluded that the Employer failed to establish that DC Code §32-1505(b) barred Claimant’s entitlement to compensation, and awarded TTD and permanent partial disability (scheduled member award) benefits, reasoning that the Notice of Controversion filed by the Employer in May, 2018 was not consistent with the requirements of DC Code §32-1505(b)’s “termination of benefits”. Employer filed an Application for Review to the CRB.

Holding

The CRB reversed, finding that the Employer’s termination of benefits via Notice of Controversion on May 17, 2018 was sufficient under D.C. Code § 32-1505(b) to trigger the running of the three-year limitation period. The CRB further rejected Claimant’s argument that the limitations period could not be triggered until the Claimant reached the cap of payment of 500 weeks of benefits, reasoning that application of such a rule would allow cases where Claimant did not reach the cap to be virtually immune from the three years of benefits, leading to lack of predictability and finality for the parties.

Takeaway

This holding continues the CRB’s trend towards providing predictability for employers and insurers. To receive the benefit of the three-year statute of limitations after termination of benefits under D.C. Code § 32-1505(b), it is imperative that the Employer file a Form 11 Notice of Controversion, and even better, a Form 15 Notice of Final Payment as required by the statute.

Questions about this case can be directed to Jamie L. DeSisto, Esquire at (443) 641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.