Opinion ID: 1537228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the injections constituted a separate injury

Text: Bentt's argument that the injections were treatment for a non-work-related injury, not a separate injury, is foreclosed by Bentt I, where we deemed not sustainable the hearing examiner's conclusion that evidence regarding the injections was irrelevant. Bentt I, 830 A.2d at 872. Our conclusion that the injections could be a separate injury (provided that the injections arose out of and in the course of Bentt's employment) was the linchpin of our decision to reverse in Bentt I. Had we concluded that the injections were treatment rather than an injury, we would have had no occasion to remand. Thus, our holding that the injections could be considered a separate injury is the law of the case, and we shall not revisit that holding here. See, e.g., Lenkin Co. Mgmt., Inc. v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 677 A.2d 46, 48 (D.C.1996).