Opinion ID: 1998977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Separate and Distinguishable Disabilities

Text: Finally, we reach petitioners' third argument, and the reason for publishing this opinion. Petitioners assert that the ALJ erred in finding that the injuries to Ms. Petway's low back and to her lower extremities were separate and distinct disabilities as described in Morrison v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 223 (D.C.1999). In Morrison we considered whether an injured worker may receive benefits for more than one disability resulting from the same injury. Id. at 224. The District of Columbia Department of Employment Services had determined that Mr. Morrison was entitled to a schedule award based on a permanent partial disability in his right arm, but he argued that he was entitled to additional, permanent partial (non-schedule) disability benefits for his shoulder disability. We remanded for further findings, holding that, [s]hould the agency make a factual finding that petitioner suffered a shoulder disability, petitioner may obtain both schedule and non-schedule benefits upon proof that his `separate and distinguishable' shoulder disability led to wage loss. Id. at 228. When it reviewed the present case in 2008, the Board affirmed the ALJ's determination that an award of concurrent temporary total disability benefits and schedule loss benefits is allowable under the Act, but, referring to Sullivan, [5] its own gloss on Morrison, it remanded for further findings of fact concerning whether the non-schedule impairment is a cause or contributing factor of the ongoing wage loss. ALJ McCoy found on remand that Claimant's back injury, independent of her lower extremities, makes her unable to return to her pre-injury job, [and] allows her to also recover for the wage loss attributable to that non-schedule anatomical work injury. In other words, Ms. Petway's continuing entitlement to wage loss benefits is based on the work injury to her back, a non-schedule body part. When it reviewed this case once more, the Board affirmed, noting that the ALJ provided a thorough and appropriate response to the Board's directive, and that the Compensation Order on Remand ... is correct in concluding that Respondent's non-schedule low back condition remains an independent cause of her wage loss.... Moreover, the Board concluded, the current case law does not constrain the ALJ from awarding concurrent wage loss and schedule loss benefits. We will uphold the agency's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, meaning `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' King v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 560 A.2d 1067, 1072 (D.C. 1989) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). In this case, the findings of separate and distinct disabilities are supported by substantial evidence, and the ruling awarding benefits is not contrary to law. We are puzzled by one portion of the Board's Decision and Order, however. After discussing our decision in Ambrose and its own decision on remand in Ambrose, the Board stated that the ALJ's analysis, while appropriate, was rendered unnecessary by the Ambrose decisions of the Court and the Board. Those decisions support the determination that entitlement to concurrent awards no longer requires analysis of the separateness or distinctiveness of the situs of the injuries. [6] Petitioners protest that in this discussion the Board effectively overruled our decision in Morrison. Ms. Petway disavows this part of the Board's decision, characterizing it as dictum. Nothing in our decision in Ambrose purports to overrule Morrison, and a panel of this court could not do so, even if it wanted to. M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d at 312. Morrison involved claims for two different types of partial disability benefits, and we did not have occasion to interpret the in addition to language that is central to this case. In that context, we held that, [s]hould the agency make a factual finding that petitioner suffered a shoulder disability, petitioner may obtain both schedule and non-schedule benefits upon proof that his `separate and distinguishable' shoulder disability led to wage loss. 736 A.2d at 228. Although the decisions in Ambrose now clarify that there are circumstances where an injured worker is not entitled to concurrent benefits, even upon proof of a separate and distinguishable disability resulting in wage loss, proof of a separate and distinguishable disability is still a prerequisite to receiving temporary total disability benefits concurrently with a schedule award. Although we disapprove the Board's comments, they do not invalidate its decision. The Board mistakenly thought that the ALJ's analysis was rendered unnecessary by the Ambrose decisions of the Court and the Board[,] but it nevertheless analyzed the record and concluded that there is substantial record evidence to support the [ALJ's] finding that Respondent has separate and distinguishable schedule and non-schedule disabilities such as would warrant concurrent awards, as well as the conclusion that her low back injury is separate, distinct, and independent of the lower extremities, such that the back injury resulted in an independent wage loss. We agree.