|
|
|
|
D.C. Court of Appeals Addresses Evidence Necessary To Rebut Presumption of Compensability under Worker's Compensation ActOn September 26, 2002, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an employer regarding the amount of evidence required to rebut the presumption of compensability in a claim for Worker’s Compensation. In a claim for Worker’s Compensation, an employee is entitled to a presumption that the employee’s claim is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. To rebut the presumption, the employer must show by substantial evidence that the disability did not arise out of and in the course of employment. In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 806 A.2d 1214 (D.C. 2002), the employee presented medical evidence that his right knee injury was caused by the added stress placed on it as a result of a work-related injury to his left knee. The evidence presented by the employee was sufficient to invoke the presumption of compensability. The Hearing Examiner found that the employer’s evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of compensability. Specifically, the Examiner found that the testimony of the employer’s expert was contradictory because the expert acknowledged that the employee’s injury to his right knee could have been caused by a transfer of weight, while at the same time stating that there was no evidence of a causal relationship between the injury to the right and the work related injury to the left knee. The Director affirmed the compensation order, rejecting the employer’s claim that it had produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability, and agreeing with the Examiner’s statement that the employer’s doctor had contradicted himself by acknowledging that the injury to the right knee could have occurred in the manner alleged. The issue of what constitutes sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability is a question of law that the Court of Appeals reviews de novo. The Court of Appeals holds that in order to rebut the presumption of compensability, an employer must present substantial evidence. The employer is not required to disprove causality with an absolute certainty. The employer is not required to prove that causation is impossible in order to rebut the presumption. The Court of Appeals held that although the opinion of the employer’s expert may have contained a minor inconsistency, the expert stated unequivocally that the work injury to the left knee was not the precipitating cause of the injury to the right knee, pointing to long standing osteoarthritis and a preexisting injury to the employee’s left knee. The Court further held that in dismissing the employer’s experts opinion, the Director effectively required the employer to disprove causality with an absolute certainty, which is too heavy a burden. The case was remanded to the Department of Employment Services. Once remanded, the Director must weigh all of the evidence without regard to the presumption of compensability. On remand, the Director may still find that the employee’s injury to his right knee was precipitated by his work injury to his left knee, however, that determination must be based on an independent weighing of the evidence, with no regard to the presumption of compensability. |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
