# Croskey v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief Board

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · September 13, 1991 · 596 A.2d 988

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731201

## Case

- **Full name:** Leneva E. CROSKEY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 13, 1991
- **Citations:** 596 A.2d 988; 1991 D.C. App. LEXIS 252; 1991 WL 178238
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ferren
- **Judges:** Ferren, Farrell, Belson
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731201

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding government successfully rebutted a prima facie showing with evidence of a pre-existing condition

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731201. Public record. Not legal advice.