Case Name: Richard WHITEHURST, Petitioner, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD et al., Respondents
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1980-07-30
Citations: 418 A.2d 1028
Docket Number: No. 79-43
Parties: Richard WHITEHURST, Petitioner, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and KERN and FERREN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 418
Pages: 1028–1029

Head Matter:
Richard WHITEHURST, Petitioner, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD et al., Respondents.
No. 79-43.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued July 2, 1980.
Decided July 30, 1980.
Michael J. Grealy, Washington, D.C., with whom John F. Markuns, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioner.
Leo N. Gorman, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Washington, D.C., with whom Judith W. Rogers, Corporation Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondents.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and KERN and FERREN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain respondents' determination that he is not entitled to disability retirement. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.
The Board found that petitioner's heart condition-a "Wolf-Parkinson-White Syndrome"-was not aggravated by the performance of duty. This conclusion is supported by the expert medical testimony before the Board. There being substantial support in the administrative record, we cannot disturb the Board's findings.
The Board found that petitioner's condition disqualified him from the full performance of duties to which he was last assigned and further found that there is insufficient evidence that there is a position within the Police Department that he is capable of performing (Findings 15 & 16 of Oct. 4, 1979 Order). This case was decided by the Board prior to our decision in Seabolt v. Police and Firemen's Retirement and Relief Board, D.C.App., 413 A.2d 908 (1980). We agree with respondents that this case should be remanded to permit the Board to reconsider this issue in light of Seabolt.
So ordered.