United States District Court, District of Columbia
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and her pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Verizon Communications, Inc., sustained work-related injuries on August 24, 2001, for which she received workers' compensation benefits. Compl. at 2. She subsequently sought permanent total disability benefits. See Id . According to plaintiff, her request was denied because the defendants submitted allegedly fraudulent evidence regarding plaintiffs poker tournament winnings, and this evidence allegedly "destroyed] her credibility" in the eyes of the presiding administrative law judge. Id. Plaintiffs request for permanent total disability benefits was denied, and the Compensation Review Board affirmed this decision on administrative appeal. See id., Ex. 9 (Decision and Order of the Compensation Review Board dated January 24, 2011) at 2. In this action, plaintiff has claimed that the defendants committed fraud upon the court (or, presumably, the Compensation Review Board), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. See generally Id . at 2-9 (Counts I - III). In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, see Id . at 7-9. plaintiff demanded reversal of the Compensation Review Board's decision, see id., Attach, (proposed motion and order to show cause and motion to set aside final order and motion to vacate void order).
This Court simply cannot grant the relief plaintiff demands. "Pursuant to the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act[, see D.C. Code § 2-501 et seq.], any party in interest who is adversely affected or aggrieved by a final decision rendered after review of a compensation order [by the Compensation Review Board] may petition for review of such decision or order by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.'” D.C. Code § 32-1522(b)(3). Any challenge to the Compensation Review Board's decisions should have been brought before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Wright v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 924 A.2d 284 (D.C. 2007) (affirming Compensation Review Board's decision to vacate ...