Case Name: Janice A. RZEPECKI, Petitioner, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1981-04-21
Citations: 429 A.2d 1388
Docket Number: No. 80-499
Parties: Janice A. RZEPECKI, Petitioner, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: Before KELLY, HARRIS and FERREN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 429
Pages: 1388–1391

Head Matter:
Janice A. RZEPECKI, Petitioner, v. POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD, Respondent.
No. 80-499.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Submitted Jan. 22, 1981.
Decided April 21, 1981.
Francis C. O’Brien and William Clague, Bethesda, Md., were on briefs, for petitioner.
Judith W. Rogers, Corp. Counsel, David P. Sutton, Acting Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., when the brief was filed, and Philip T. Van Zile, III, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Grosse Point Farms, Mich., were on brief, for respondent.
Before KELLY, HARRIS and FERREN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner challenges respondent's decision denying her request for disability retirement under D.C.Code 1973, § 4-526, -527. Finding substantial evidence in the record to support respondent's determination, and no error of law having been committed, we affirm.
The Board found that petitioner, who presented evidence of a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, suffered "some limiting disability," but concluded that she was not permanently disabled for useful and efficient service in the grade or class of position last occupied by her as a member of the United States Park Police. See D.C.Code 1973, § 4-521(2). This conclusion is supported by the expert medical testimony before the Board and by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. See D.C.Code 1973, § 1-1510(3)(E). Accordingly, it is not our role to disturb the Board's decision.
Affirmed.
Petitioner previously had sustained an ankle injury and originally sought disability retirement on that basis, which was denied.