Pro-Football, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dept. of Employment Services
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
782 A.2d 735 (2001)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
On August 26, 1994, Richard G. Graf (plaintiff) was employed as a football player with Pro-Football, Inc. (d/b/a Washington Redskins) (Washington) (defendant) when he injured his neck and arm during a preseason game. Graf was placed on the injured-reserve list. Graf filed for workers’-compensation benefits. Graf’s treating physician, Dr. Charles Jackson, conducted tests and diagnosed him with nerve-root irritation. Graf saw other physicians, including Dr. John Long, who diagnosed him with a bulging disc; Dr. Frederick Kriss, who diagnosed him with cervical stenosis; and Dr. Joseph Torg, who was referred to Graf by Dr. Jackson and believed Graf did not have cervical stenosis. Months after the injury, Dr. Jackson recommended that Graf stay on the injured-reserve list. At the hearing, Dr. Torg and Dr. Jackson testified that Graf did not have cervical stenosis and was capable of playing football. Dr. Kriss testified that Graf was not capable. Washington’s manager testified that Graf was terminated due to his skill level. Graf testified he was not notified of any termination. Relying mostly on the testimony of Dr. Kriss, the hearing examiner found Graf had suffered a permanent impairment, was not capable of continuing his employment as a professional football player, and had suffered a wage loss of $2,500 weekly. The Department of Employment Services awarded temporary total-disability and permanent partial-disability benefits. Washington and its carrier, Reliance National Insurance Company (Reliance) (defendant), contested the award of permanent partial disability, arguing that the examiner did not give proper weight to the opinions of Graf’s treating physicians and did not resolve issues regarding the factual basis of the experts’ opinions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wagner, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.