Washington Post v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

825 A.2d 296 (D.C. 2003) · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003 · No. No. 02-AA-613

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a decision awarding workers' compensation benefits to Steven Malik for injuries sustained while working for The Washington Post. The court held that payments calculated under Virginia law did not constitute compensation received under Virginia workers' compensation law because Malik had not agreed to the payments and no agreement had been filed with or approved by the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. The court also upheld the finding that Malik's 1999 and 2000 injuries were recurrences or aggravations of earlier District of Columbia injuries.

Holdings

  1. Payments made unilaterally by an employer under Virginia compensation rates do not constitute compensation received under Virginia workers' compensation law when the employee did not agree to the compensation and no memorandum of agreement was filed with or approved by the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission.
  2. Malik's deposit and acceptance of the payments did not waive his right to assert that the payments were made under the wrong jurisdiction's law because he disputed the Virginia calculation and the payments were not legally recognized as voluntary Virginia benefits.
  3. The ALJ's finding that Malik's 1999 and 2000 injuries were recurrences or aggravations of his 1996 and 1997 injuries was supported by substantial evidence.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the 1999 and 2000 payments made by The Washington Post under Virginia compensation rates constituted compensation received under Virginia workers' compensation law, thereby barring Malik from receiving District of Columbia benefits under D.C. Code § 32-1503(a-1).
  2. Whether Malik's 1999 and 2000 back injuries were new, Virginia injuries or recurrences or aggravations of his earlier District of Columbia injury.
  3. Whether Malik's deposit and acceptance of the payments waived his right to claim District of Columbia workers' compensation benefits.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (9)

  • Mendez v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 819 A.2d 959, 960 (D.C. 2003)(followed)
  • Springer v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 743 A.2d 1213, 1218 (D.C. 1999)(distinguished)
  • Lee v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 509 A.2d 100, 102 (D.C. 1986)(followed)
  • National Linen Serv. v. McGuinn, 5 Va. App. 265, 362 S.E.2d 187 (1987)(followed)
  • Henrico Pub. Utils. v. Taylor, 34 Va. App. 233, 540 S.E.2d 501, 504 (2001)(followed)
  • Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, No. 02-AA-223, 825 A.2d 292 (D.C. May 29, 2003)(followed)
  • Brown v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 700 A.2d 787, 791-792 (D.C. 1997)(followed)
  • Harris v. District of Columbia Office of Worker's Compensation, 660 A.2d 404, 407-408 (D.C. 1995)(followed)
  • Short v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 723 A.2d 845, 851 (D.C. 1998)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from District Of Columbia District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals