April 19, 2016
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil
Division (CAB-2744-14) Hon. Maurice A. Ross, Trial Judge
Bernadette Sargeant for appellant.
Richard S. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney General, with whom
Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of
Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Loren L.
AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for
THOMPSON and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior
case came to be heard on the transcript of record and the
briefs filed, and was argued by counsel. On consideration
whereof, and as set forth in the opinion filed this date, it
is now hereby
and ADJUDGED that the judgment on appeal is reversed and
remanded for further proceedings
McLeese, Associate Judge
the District of Columbia sued appellant Donna Marsden,
seeking to recover over $100, 000 that the District had paid
Ms. Marsden in connection with a disability-compensation
claim that was ultimately denied. The trial court granted
summary judgment to the District on the District's claim
of unjust enrichment. We reverse and remand for further
Marsden filed a claim for disability compensation with the
District of Columbia Office of Risk Management (ORM) in
connection with an injury that Ms. Marsden sustained while
working as an employee of the District of Columbia Public
Schools. Marsden v. District of Columbia Dep't of
Emp't Servs., 58 A.3d 472, 473 (D.C. 2013). The ORM
denied the initial claim in 2009, and Ms. Marsden appealed.
Id. After an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded
Ms. Marsden disability compensation, the District appealed to
the Compensation Review Board (CRB). Id. While the
appeal was pending, the District sent payments to Ms. Marsden
in compliance with the ALJ's decision. In June 2011, the
CRB reversed the ALJ's decision, on the ground that Ms.
Marsden had not timely sought review of the ORM's denial.
Id. The District stopped sending payments to Ms.
Marsden in September 2011. This court affirmed the CRB's
decision in January 2013. Id. at 472-75.
September 2013, the ORM sent Ms. Marsden written notice that
she had received a $143, 789.89 overpayment between November
2008 and September 2011. The notice included a preliminary
determination that, although Ms. Marsden was not at fault for
the overpayment, the ORM would be taking action under D.C.
Code § 1-623.29 (2006 Repl.) to recover the full amount.
The notice also explained that Ms. Marsden had "the
right to request a waiver of the . . . recovery."
Finally, the notice stated that if information supporting a
waiver request was not provided within thirty days, the
waiver request would be denied. Ms. Marsden did not file a
2014, the District filed a complaint against Ms. Marsden in
Superior Court, among other things seeking recovery under the
doctrine of unjust enrichment. The trial court orally granted