Opinion ID: 1899037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Two Stages of OEA Review.

Text: Hutchinson exercised his right under D.C.Code § 1-606.3(a) to appeal this adverse action to the OEA. See also OEA R. 604.1(b), 39 D.C.Reg. 7404, 7406 (1992). In the first stage of OEA review, an administrative judge, Blanca E. Torres, held a de novo evidentiary hearing at which various witnesses testified. See OEA R. 628.1, 628.2, 39 D.C.Reg. at 7421. In her initial decision, the administrative judge found that the Department had proven that Hutchinson's inefficiency, and not a computer malfunction, was the reason the call was lost. The administrative judge also determined that removal was an appropriate penalty. On January 25, 1994, Hutchinson initiated the second stage of OEA proceedings by filing a petition for review with the full OEA. [2] See OEA R. 636.2, 39 D.C.Reg. at 7425 ([t]he initial decision shall not become final if any party files a petition for review); see also OEA R. 637, 39 D.C.Reg. at 7426-27 (governing review procedures). Specifically, Hutchinson asked that the administrative judge's initial decision be reconsidered in light of the decision of another administrative judge concerning another Fire Department employee. The OEA denied the petition in a twelve-page opinion and the administrative judge's initial order became the OEA's final order. See OEA R. 636.3, 39 D.C.Reg. at 7425.