Court Opinion

ID: 9649955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:15:24.370624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:16.237224
License: Public Domain

MACK, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot join the majority in approving the rejection by the Director of the Department of Employment Services, as a matter of law, of the hearing examiner’s factual findings that petitioner had given timely notice of his injury. The hearing examiner found that petitioner, subsequent to his leaving employment, suffered from a “deteriorated mental condition” which prevented his awareness, for legal and other purposes, of the nexus between his injury and employment with WGL. The record shows that there was substantial evidence to support the examiner’s findings, evidence supplied by petitioner’s psychiatrist and petitioner himself (to which the majority here only pays lip service). In evaluating the psychiatrist’s credibility, the hearing examiner found his testimony to be “well-reasoned and supported by adequate rationale under the facts of this case.” The examiner likewise concluded that petitioner’s testimony was credible. Indeed, in this court, the majority admits that “record evidence reveals no reason to question [petitioner’s] veracity.” In this context, therefore, the examiner properly concluded that petitioner reasonably knew or should have known that his injury was work related on January 27, 1986, when he consulted an attorney and decided to seek psychiatric assistance, and that petitioner notified the employer within thirty days after that date.
In Dell v. DOES, 499 A.2d 102 (D.C.1985), this court recognized that section 3626.4 of 29 D.C.Reg. 5565 (1982) applies to all cases. Section 3626.4 states, “[t]he Director shall affirm the compensation order if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Moreover, the hearing examiner’s decision as to an employee’s “awareness” of a nexus is entitled to a greater deference where, as here, the examiner has heard live testimony and observed the demeanor of the witnesses. The definition of substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and the Director is bound by the hearing examiner’s decision if the findings are supported by substantial evidence, “even though the reviewing authority may have reached a contrary result based on an independent review of the record.” Dell, supra, 499 A.2d at 108 (emphasis added).
Nor can I see that the employer here was prejudiced by claimed untimely notice since there is no evidence that either of the “two purposes” for the notice requirement (that is, treatment and investigation) would be thwarted. It is significant here that WGL waited four months after receiving notice op March 6, 1986, before it had petitioner examined by its physician, and also that the very source of petitioner’s claimed injury was the conduct of petitioner’s direct supervisor toward him. This situation could not have been unknown to WGL because petitioner had made repeated efforts to be transferred for this reason and had filed for unemployment compensation on October 25, 1985, alleging that he was forced to *653resign by the activities of his supervisor. In this regard, it is somewhat of an anomaly that the majority chooses to cite Teal’s resignation letter of October 1985 as sufficient evidence that Teal knew he had a work related injury and as insufficient evidence that the employer had notice that Teal had a work related injury for purposes of D.C.Code § 36—313(d)(1) (1988).
I would hold there was substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner’s findings, that in the alternative, the employer had sufficient notice, was not prejudiced, and that petitioner’s claim for worker’s compensation rights should not be barred. I respectfully dissent.