Opinion ID: 2399321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compensable loss.

Text: The ALJ and the Director each denied relief to Ms. Mills, but on markedly different grounds. Neither ground can be sustained. The ALJ held that Ms. Mills had failed to present any evidence of an ascertainable wage loss during the 2000-01 off-season. The ALJ did not, however, address or even mention the wage loss claimed by Ms. Mills as a result of her injury, namely, the opportunity to play professional basketball in Turkey during the off-season. The ALJ thus failed, without any explanation, to make a finding with respect to the principal factual allegation on which Ms. Mills had relied in support of her claim. The Director, on the other hand, recognized the need to address the offer from Urla. The Director explicitly acknowledged that if Ms. Mills had accepted the offer, perhaps a different outcome would result. The Director denied relief, however, because an offer of employment is not tantamount to a guarantee of employment. (Emphasis added.) [2] The Director cited no authority for this purported requirement of certainty, and we know of none. Counsel for the employer likewise cited no such authority, and, at oral argument, he was not prepared to defend the tantamount to a guarantee standard. In this area, as in most, the law does not deal in certainties. Rather, a showing of disability must be by substantial evidence. Upchurch, 783 A.2d at 627. In a very recent opinion, we rejected a finding by another agency which rested on a party's failure to establish conclusively a contested fact. Pres. & Dirs. of Georgetown College v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 837 A.2d 58, 67, No. 01-AA-182 (D.C.2003). In this case, Ms. Mills presented substantial evidence which, if credited by the trier of fact, could form the basis for a finding of a wage loss resulting from Ms. Mills' on the job injury. Urla's payment of $50,000 to Ms. Mills for her play during the ensuing off-season suggests that the claimed loss was no mirage, nor was it necessarily insubstantial. Moreover, as a No. 2 draft pick, Ms. Mills plainly had much to offer to the Turkish club. Whether there was in fact a compensable wage loss  an issue which we do not decide  may turn on a number of factors, including whether there was other work that Ms. Mills, a college graduate, could have performed during the off-season and, if so, whether the expected remuneration for such work was equal or comparable to her potential salary in Turkey. Cf. The Washington Post Co. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 675 A.2d 37, 42 (D.C.1996). In any event, on remand, the agency must make appropriate findings regarding the oral offer from Urla, any loss suffered by Ms. Mills as a result of her inability to accept the offer, and other related issues. [3]