concluding government successfully rebutted a prima facie showing with evidence of a pre-existing condition
How later courts described this case
- concluding government successfully rebutted a prima facie showing with evidence of a pre-existing condition
- “when the duly related injury aggravates a pre-existing non-duty related injury ... a claimant is not entitled to the higher level of benefits”
- “[t]he ultimate burden of persuasion remain[s] with [the person claiming entitlement to a special pension rate pursuant to Section 4-616(a) ]”
- “The ultimate burden of persuasion remained with Croskey.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FERREN, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I agree that a “claimant cannot qualify for the special pension rate if the on-duty injury aggravates some preexisting, non-service-related injury.” Ante at [989]. The Board’s conclusion that Croskey’s disability “was not caused by the performance of her duties,” ante at [990], can be valid only if the Board found, by reference to record evidence, that her disability was an aggravation of her preexisting borderline personality disorder. At best the Board’s finding to that effect is implicit; it is nowhere stated as such.
The Board accordingly has disregarded the requirement of Citizens Ass’n of Georgetown, Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 402 A.2d 36, 42 (D.C.1979), that when an administrative body fails to make written findings of basic facts on all material contested issues, “[t]he court cannot properly fill the gap itself by inferring findings ... through inspection of the record, the agency’s other findings, and the ultimate decision.”
This is a close case; the evidence was disputed. I would accordingly remand the record for more explicit findings on the relationship between Croskey’s borderline personality disorder and her post-traumatic stress disorder. Respectfully, therefore, I dissent.