Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James Winstead, et al v. the District of Columbia

July 26, 2010

JAMES WINSTEAD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS OF FACT*fn1

Tara Rogers

1. Rogers was injured on January 1, 1998. DEX*fn2 2 at 1; PEX 201 at 1; 7/26/10 Tr. at 127.

2. Rogers was injured on April 27, 1998. PEX 198 at 4.

3. Rogers was injured on February 4, 2002. PEX 203.

4. On April 28, 1998, Rogers filed a Form 1 Claimant's Form with the D.C. Disability Compensation Program ("the DCP") regarding her January 1, 1998 injury. PEX 198 at 1.

5. On May 5, 1998, Rogers' supervisor signed a Form 2 Supervisor's Form indicating that she did not certify that Rogers was in the performance of her duty at the time of her April 27, 1998, injury. PEX 198 at 4.

6. On December 31, 1998, Rogers received a Notice of Determination by Examiner from the DCP indicating that her disability compensation claim for benefits relating to her January 1, 1998, injury had been denied/terminated on the basis that she had a non-occupational disease. PEX 199. Rogers was also told that she could submit a written request for review within thirty days of the date of the decision. PEX 199.

7. On August 27, 1999, Rogers received a Final Order of Denial from the DCP regarding her January 1, 1998, injury. PEX 200 at 1. Her claim was denied on the basis that she had a non-occupational disease. PEX 200 at 1. Rogers was also told that she could submit a written request for a hearing within thirty days of the date of the decision. PEX 200 at 2.

8. On October 6, 1999, Rogers requested a formal hearing from the Office of Hearings and Adjudication ("OHA") regarding her January 1, 1998, injury. PEX 201 at 1.

9. On September 18, 2000, Rogers received a Final Compensation Order from the DCP adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Compensation Decision, which recommended that Rogers' claim for disability compensation and medical benefits relating to her January 1, 1998,*fn3 injury be granted. PEX 202 at 1, 6. The parties were informed that any appeals had to be filed in writing within thirty days of the date of the decision. PEX 202 at 1.

10. On January 27, 2002, Rogers wrote a letter to Mayor Williams regarding her inability to obtain health insurance through the DCP. PEX 209 at 1.

11. On May 22, 2002, Rogers received a Form 5 Notice of Controversion stating that her claim for disability benefits as to her February 4, 2002, injury had been denied. PEX 203. Rogers was also informed that she could apply in writing for reconsideration within thirty days of the date of the decision. PEX 203.

12. On June 24, 2002, Rogers formally requested reconsideration of the Notice of Controversion dated May 22, 2002 relating to her February 4, 2002, injury. PEX 204 at 1.

13. On July 5, 2002, the D.C. Office of Risk Management ("ORM") acknowledged receipt of Rogers' request for reconsideration of her disability compensation benefits relating to her February 4, 2002, injury. PEX 205.

14. On August 6, 2002, Rogers received notice from the DCP that an appointment for an Independent Medical Evaluation ("IME") relating to her February 4, 2002, injury had been scheduled for August 28, 2003. PEX 206.

15. On September 6, 2002, Rogers received a letter from CLW/CKM, Inc. indicating that she had been selected to participate in the Skills Equal Employment Knowledge program. PEX 207 at 1.

16. On November 7, 2002, Rogers received a letter from Concentra Medical Examinations indicating that an appointment for an IME relating to her January 1, 1998 injury had been scheduled for December 23, 2002. PEX 208.

17. On April 17, 2003, Rogers received a DCP-5 Notice of Intent to Terminate Disability Compensation Payments from the DCP stating that her payments relating to her January 1, 1998,*fn4 injury would be terminated on May 18, 2003. PEX 210 at 1. Rogers was also told that she could either request reconsideration by submitting a written request within 10 days of the date of the notice or appeal to the OHA. PEX 210 at 1-2.

18. On June 13, 2003, Rogers sent the DCP a letter indicating her willingness to undergo vocational rehabilitation services with regard to her February 4, 2002,*fn5 injury. PEX 211.

19. On June 13, 2003, Rogers formally requested reconsideration of the Notice of Controversion dated April 17, 2003, relating to her February 4, 2002, injury. PEX 212 at 1.

20. On June 18, 2003, ORM acknowledged receipt of Rogers' request for reconsideration of her disability compensation benefits relating to her February 4, 2002, injury. PEX 213.

21. On July 31, 2003, Rogers submitted an Application for Formal Hearing to OHA relating to her February 4, 2002,*fn6 injury. PEX 214 at 1-2.

22. On August 20, 2003, Rogers requested a Pre-Hearing Conference from OHA relating to her January 1, 1998, and February 4, 2002 injuries.*fn7 PEX 215.

23. On September 7, 2003, OHA issued an Order Granting Motion for Pre-Hearing Conference relating to claims number 552.*fn8 PEX 216.

24. On September 15, 2003, Rogers sent the DCP a copy of her report of disability rating, seeking an award for permanent partial disability.*fn9 PEX 217.

25. On September 29, 2003, Rogers sent the Office of the Corporation Counsel a letter outlining her analysis of the issues presented in relation to her efforts to obtain disability compensation for her injury of January 1, 1998.*fn10 PEX 218.

26. On October 1, 2003, Rogers withdrew her application to OHA for a formal hearing relating to her January 1, 1998, injury on the basis that all contested issues had been resolved in that DCP had agreed to reinstate Rogers' benefits including all past due and accrued benefits from May 18, 2003, to the present and continuing. PEX 219.

27. On October 2, 2003, Rogers received a letter from Elite Medical Legal Services confirming that an IME had be scheduled for her on October 16, 2003, regarding her January 1, 1998, injury. PEX 220 at 1.

28. On October 23, 2003, OHA issued an Order Dismissing Application for Formal Hearing based on the representations in Rogers' October 1, 2003, letter.*fn11 PEX 221.

29. On October 29, 2003, Rogers sent DCP a copy of the October 2, 2003, written agreement between the parties relating to her February 4, 2002,*fn12 injury. PEX 222 at 1.

30. On January 5, 2004, the DCP issued a Form 5 Compensation Determination by Examiner reducing Rogers' benefits as to her January 1, 1998,*fn13 injury. PEX 223.

31. On April 2, 2004, Rogers received a Form 5 Compensation Determination by Examiner from the DCP stating that her disability compensation claim for her January 1, 1998,*fn14 injury had been approved. DEX 2 at 1-2; PEX 224 at 1-2; 7/26/10 Tr. at 132-33; PEX 225 at 3-4. Rogers was also told that she could apply in writing for reconsideration of the decision within 30 days from the date of the decision. DEX 2 at 1; PEX 224 at 1; PEX 225 at 3-4.

32. On April 9, 2004, Rogers formally requested reconsideration by the DCP of the April 2, 2004, compensation determination.*fn15 PEX 225 at 1-2; 7/26/10 Tr. at 133.

33. On April 12, 2004, Rogers formally requested reconsideration of the DCP's April 2, 2004, determination.*fn16 PEX 226 at 1-3; 7/26/10 Tr. at 133.

34. On July 23, 2004, Rogers received a letter from the D.C. Office of Personnel ("OP") regarding her January 1, 1998, injury, in which she was asked whether she planned and was able to return to her position. PEX 228.

35. On June 9, 2006, Rogers received a Form NOC Notice of Determination Regarding Permanent Partial Disability Benefits relating to her January 1, 1998, injury that indicated that an overpayment of benefits had occurred. PEX 229 at 1-2. Rogers was also told that she could either 1) request reconsideration by submitting the Request for Reconsideration Form and supporting documentation within thirty days of the date of the notice, or 2) appeal the notice to OHA. PEX 229 at 1.

36. On June 16, 2006, Rogers received a Form DCORM-1 Final Decision on Reconsideration from DCP as to her injury of January 1, 1998, indicating that the previous determination as to Rogers' disability was being upheld but that clarification regarding her desire to receive permanent partial disability benefits was required. PEX 230 at 1-2; 7/26/10 Tr. at 130, 133. Rogers was also told that she could file for a hearing with OHA by July 15, 2006, thirty days from the date of the decision. PEX 230 at 2-3.

Patricia Hayden

1. Hayden was injured on February 2, 1996. PEX 78 at 1 n.1; 7/27/10 Tr. at 31.

2. Hayden was injured on February 9, 1996. PEX 54 at 1; 7/27/10 Tr. at 31.

3. Hayden was injured on February 14, 1996. PEX 53; 7/27/10 Tr. at 32.

4. Hayden was injured on November 30, 1998. PEX 70; 7/27/10 Tr. at 32.

5. Hayden was injured on December 15, 1999. PEX 78 at 1; 7/27/10 Tr. at 31.

6. Hayden was injured on November 30, 2005. DEX 3 at 1; PEX 80; 7/27/10 Tr. at 33.

7. On December 10, 2000, Hayden filed a claim for recurrence of her disability relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 56; 7/27/10 Tr. at 35.

8. On March 28, 2001, Hayden sent a letter to the DCP requesting information about the status of her October 2000 claim for recurrence of her disability relating to her February 14, 1996, injury. PEX 53; 7/27/10 Tr. at 35-36.

9. On May 9, 2001, Hayden received a Notice of Determination by Examiner from the DCP stating that her disability compensation claim for her February 9, 1996, injury was being terminated. PEX 54 at 1; 7/27/10 Tr. at 37. Hayden was informed that she could submit a written request for review of the decision within thirty days from the date of the decision. PEX 54 at 1.

10. On July 18, 2001, Hayden formally requested reconsideration of the Notice of Determination relating to her February 14, 1996, injury. PEX 55; 7/27/10 Tr. at 37.

11. On October 17, 2001, Hayden sent a letter to the DCP requesting information about the status of her claim for recurrence of her disability relating to her February 9, 1996, injury, which was filed on December 10, 2000. PEX 56 at 1.

12. On January 23, 2002, Hayden sent a letter to the DCP forwarding a copy of her July 18, 2001, request for reconsideration relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 57 at 1; 7/27/10 Tr. at 37.

13. On January 25, 2002, Hayden received a Final Order from the DCP stating that her request for reconsideration relating to her February 9, 1996, injury had been denied as untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the decision. PEX 58.

14. On January 30, 2002, Hayden filed an application for a formal hearing and final order of denial relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 59; 7/27/10 Tr. at 38.

15. On May 31, 2002, the DCP issued a Final Compensation Order denying Hayden's claim for benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 60 at 4; 7/27/10 Tr. at 37.

16. On December 10, 2002, the D.C. Department of Employment Services' ("DOES") Office of the Director issued a Decision and Remand Order of the Director reversing the May 31, 2002, Final Compensation Order denying Hayden's claim for benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 60 at 4; 7/27/10 Tr. at 39. Both parties were informed that they could file an application for review with the D.C. Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision. PEX 60 at 5.

17. On January 23, 2003, Hayden sent a letter to the DCP requesting a breakdown of their calculations regarding her disability award relating to her November 30, 1998, injury. PEX 70.

18. On August 6, 2003, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an Order granting the District's consent motion to dismiss its petition for review of the December 10, 2002, decision relating to her February 9, 1996,*fn17 injury. PEX 61.

19. On August 11, 2003, Hayden forwarded the DCP a copy of the D.C. Court of Appeal's August 6, 2003, decision and requested payment of temporary total disability compensation wage replacement benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 62 at 1.

20. On September 15, 2003, Hayden sent the DCP various completed forms in support of her request for wage replacement benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 63.

21. On October 23, 2003, Hayden sent the DCP copies of her 2000 and 2002 income tax forms in support of her request for temporary total disability compensation relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 64.

22. On November 7, 2003, Hayden sent the DCP copies of social security documents in support of her claim for disability benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 65.

23. On January 7, 2004, Hayden sent the DCP a copy of her IRS statement of income for 2000, 2001, and 2002, in support of her claim for benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 67, PEX 68.

24. On January 21, 2004, Hayden sent the DCP a letter requesting a breakdown of their calculations regarding her disability award for her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 69.

25. On January 23, 2004, Hayden was paid $33,203.88. 7/27/10 Tr. at 40.

26. On February 2, 2004, Hayden sent the DCP a letter challenging the amount that she had been awarded in temporary total disability compensation benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 72.

27. On February 3, 2004, Hayden received a letter from the DCP explaining the calculations that were done to arrive at the total sum of her award relating to her February 9, 1996, injury.*fn18 PEX 73.

28. On February 9, 2004, Hayden sent the DCP a letter requesting additional information about their calculations regarding the disability award for her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 74.

29. On February 20, 2004, Hayden formally requested reconsideration of the calculations contained in the DCP's letter of February 3, 2004, which contained a detailed breakdown of the disability award for her February 9, 1996, injury. DEX 3 at 2; PEX 75.

30. On February 24, 2004, the DCP acknowledged receipt of Hayden's request for reconsideration of her disability compensation benefits relating to her February 9, 1996, injury. PEX 76.

31. On March 24, 2004, Hayden filed Petitioner's Suggestions in Support of Petition in Mandamus with the D.C. Court of Appeals relating to her February 9, 1996, injury.*fn19

PEX 78 at 1-14.

32. On April 16, 2004, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued an Order denying without prejudice Hayden's petition for writ of mandamus relating to her February 9, 1996.*fn20

PEX 79.

33. On April 25, 2006, Hayden was paid $79,951. 7/27/10 Tr. at 40-42.

34. On April 24, 2007, Hayden received a Form DCORM-1 Final Decision on Reconsideration from the DCP indicating that her disability compensation claim for her November 30, 2005,*fn21 injury had been reconsidered and that she was being awarded additional monies. PEX 80 at 2; DEX 3 at 2. Hayden was also told that she had thirty days, or until May 23, 2007, to request a hearing with OHA. PEX 80 at 1-3; DEX 3 at 1-3.

George Morgan

1. Morgan was injured on May 10, 1983. DEX 18; PEX 153; PEX 235 at 2; 7/26/11 Tr. at 217. He has not returned to work since then. 7/26/11 Tr. at 219.

2. On December 18, 1998, Morgan received a letter from CorVel scheduling an IME for January 5, 1999. PEX 154 at 3.

3. On October 17, 2000, Morgan received a Notice of Determination by Examiner from the DCP adjusting his benefits to reflect that he had been found to be capable of returning to light duty work. DEX 18; PEX 153. Morgan was informed that he could submit a written request for a review within 30 days of the date of the adjustment. DEX 18; PEX 153.

4. On November 14, 2000, Morgan sent two lettersindicating his dissatisfaction with his compensation adjustment. PEX 154 at 1, 2.

5. On November 19, 2000, the DCP reduced Morgan's benefits pursuant to an alleged change in wage earning capacity. 7/26/11 Tr. at 218.

6. On December 12, 2000, Morgan sent a letter to the DCP requesting reconsideration of his workers' compensation decision. PEX 155 at 1.

7. On January 3, 2001, Morgan formally requested adjustment of his lost wage-earning capacity based upon a change of circumstances. PEX 156; 7/26/11 Tr. at 218.

8. On June 21, 2001, Morgan sent the DCP a letter inquiring about the status of his claim filed January 3, 2001. PEX 157.

9. On September 3, 2003, Morgan received a letter from the DCP requesting that he complete a claim for continuing benefits form, a request for copy of transcript of tax form, and an election of benefits form. PEX 158.

10. On March 19, 2004, Morgan filed a formal claim for workers' compensation benefits based upon a change of circumstances. PEX 159.

11. Morgan received biweekly lost wage benefits and medical benefits from the DCP from May 10, 1983 up to and including June 8, 2004. 7/26/10 Tr. at 217.

12. On April 30, 2007, Morgan received a letter from ORM asking that he confirm, within ten days, that no deductions were being withheld from his bi-weekly compensation check for health insurance and/or life insurance. PEX 160 at 1.

13. On August 3, 2007, Morgan received a Final Decision on Reconsideration from DCP upholding the original decision to reduce his benefits. PEX 161 at 1-3. Morgan was also told that he had thirty days, or until September 1, 2007, to file for a hearing with OHA. PEX 161 at 1, 3.

14. On June 5, 2008, an evidentiary hearing was held by OHA. 7/27/10 Tr. at 16.

15. On October 24, 2008, the OHA issued a Compensation Order in which it reversed the August 3, 2007 Final Decision on Reconsideration and granted Morgan's claim for relief seeking reinstatement of temporary total disability compensation benefits from November 19, 2000 and payment of medical expenses. PEX 235 at 11; 7/27/10 Tr. at 16. Morgan was awarded $138,082.88. 7/27/10 Tr. at 16.

16. On December 24, 2008, Morgan's award was reduced to $78,240.64, which he was paid. 7/27/10 Tr. at 17.

Denise Downing

1. Downing was injured on October 12, 1992. PEX 164 at 1; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.