Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (2001); 7 DCMR §§ 312.2,312.8 (2011). 10 . Capitol Entm't Servs., 25 A.3d at 22; see also D.C.Code § 51-110(b)(l)-(2). 16 A.3d 130, 135 (D.C.2011) (" '[I]mplicit in [the] definition of 'misconduct' is that the employee intentionally disregarded the employer’s expectations for performance.'") (quoting Washington Times v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 724 A.2d 1212, 1217-18 (D.C.1999)); Chase v. D.C. Dep't of Emp’t Servs., 804 A.2d 1119, 1124 n. 12 (D.C.2002) (noting that a finding that the employee's misconduct was intentional "may be required even for a finding of simple misconduct”). 21 . Odeniran, 985 A.2d at 428. 22 . Id. at 426. 23 . Id. at 428. 24 . Doyle v. NAI Pers., Inc., 991 A.2d 1181, 1183 (D.C.2010). 25 . See Badawi v. Hawk One Sec., Inc., 21 A.3d 607, 615 (D.C.2011) (<HOLDING>). 26 . See Hegwood v. Chinatown CVS, Inc., 954 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case (B) holding that this court could not affirm the aljs finding of gross misconduct because the alj failed to make findings on every material contested issue of fact (C) holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it (D) holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make (E) holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids
Output (English): holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it