eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – February 2025 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Howard Univ. Hosp. v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs.
No. 23-AA-0699
D.C. Court of Appeals

Decided: January 10, 2025

DCA holds that employee did not voluntarily limit his income or fail to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation when he quit a new job after only 4 days

Background

The Claimant had permanent restrictions after a work injury which could not be accommodated by the pre-injury Employer. He participated in vocational rehabilitation and was cooperative. He accepted a new job with a new employer but quit without permission from the vocational counselor after 4 days of training due to the long commute and being trained for more physically demanding work than promised. After quitting, he expressed his desire to continue with vocational rehabilitation. The Employer sought to terminate benefits under D.C. Code §32-1508(5) based on voluntary limitation of income, and under §32-15-7(a), (d) for non-cooperation with vocational rehabilitation. The ALJ and CRB determined that the job was not commensurate with the Claimant’s abilities due to the long commute exacerbating his symptoms, and him being trained for more physically demanding work than promised. Further, he did not unreasonably refuse vocational rehabilitation because he had cooperated before and after placement and was not required to consult his counselor before quitting an unsuitable job.

Holding

The DCA affirmed, holding that the CRB’s opinion was based on substantial evidence. It reasoned that (1) geographic location is a critical part of the analysis of suitable employment; (2) the Employer presented no evidence to contradict the Claimant’s testimony about the job duties involved in the new employment or his cooperation with vocational rehabilitation, or medical evidence to controvert Claimant’s doctor’s statement that the new job was aggravating Claimant’s symptoms.

Takeaway

It is very difficult to establish non-cooperation with vocational rehabilitation. To prevail in this case, the Employer likely needed a representative from the new employer to testify to contradict the Claimant’s statements about the job duties required for the new job.

Any questions regarding this case can be addressed to Jamie L. DeSisto, Esquire at (443) 641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.