SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington DC Significant Case Summary

Jannie White v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and Howard University, et al.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Nos. 24-AA-0701 & 24-AA-0746
Decided: January 13, 2026

Claimant’s voluntary retirement did not bar her eligibility for disability benefits when the evidence showed she left the workforce due to a work-related injury.

Background

In 2001, the Claimant injured her right knee while working as a registered nurse for the Employer. The Claimant returned to work for the Employer at full capacity. Her right knee condition later impacted her left knee, and she thus developed a bilateral knee impairment related to her 2001 injury. In 2003, while working for the Employer, the Claimant injured her shoulder and was unable to return to work. Although she obtained employment with a subsequent employer in 2008, she had to leave this position in 2009 due to knee pain and was unemployed since. The Claimant underwent total knee replacement surgeries in 2016 and 2018. In 2016, the Claimant began receiving retirement benefits based on prior employment with Employer. In 2021, the Claimant filed for permanent total disability wage-loss benefits from October 2016 forward. In January 2022, the ALJ denied the Claimant’s claim for benefits finding that she had voluntarily limited her income by retiring and that her retirement was based on her intent to no longer work rather than her knee impairment. In March 2023, the denial was affirmed by the CRB which found no evidence that when she retired the Claimant was alleging disability related to her injury and agreed with the ALJ that voluntary retirement can sever the connection between disability and wage loss. In October 2022, the Claimant requested a schedule award for partial permanent disability of her legs. The ALJ dismissed her claim finding she did not show a change in circumstances from the January 2022 order. The CRB affirmed finding substantial support that the impact on the Claimant’s wage-earning capacity was due to voluntary retirement rather than her knee impairment. The Claimant sought review of the CRB decision in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Holding

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the CRB decision affirming the COR determination that the Claimant was not entitled to a schedule award. It was unreasonable to conclude that the Claimant’s departure from the workforce was voluntary and severed the causal relationship between her knee injury and loss of wage-earning capacity simply because she retired. The record supported that the Claimant had been experiencing severe knee impairment prior to her 2016 retirement and had been unable to work since 2009. The evidence thus demonstrated that the retirement paperwork was simply a formality and did not impact her wage-earning capacity. The ALJ thus failed to consider all material facts and the totality of the circumstances in determining that the Claimant voluntarily limited her income by retiring.

Takeaway

The reason behind the Claimants departure from the workforce is key in determining their eligibility for disability benefits. If a claimant leaves employment due to a work-related injury that prevents them from performing their job, they are not voluntarily limiting their income simply because they framed their departure from the workforce as retirement.

Any questions regarding this case can be addressed to Jamie L. DeSisto, Esquire at (443)641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.