Soccer Player Scores Second Look at Knee Injury Claim

Case File

A professional soccer player injured her knee while playing in 2001 or 2002, but in 2015 she began experiencing problems with the other knee, something she attributed to having to walk different because of the first knee injury. A mix up on what exactly the claimed injury was caused her case to get off track. Simply Research readers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Little v. District of Columbia Depart of Employment Services, No. 23-AA-0460 (D.C. 09/05/24).

What Happened?

A professional soccer player suffered a left knee injury while playing and made a workers' compensation claim related to a right knee disability that arose many years later. According to the player, her longstanding left knee injury caused her to change her gait in a way that led to deterioration of her right knee and necessitated two surgeries.

An administrative law judge denied the claim because:

(1) There was evidence that the player had right knee surgeries prior to the left knee injury.

(2) The evidence, in the ALJ's view, "cast doubt" on the player's "supposed claim" that she suffered a work-related injury to her knee" when the left knee injury occurred.

The Compensation Review Board affirmed the denial. The player appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the district.

Rule of Law

The Court of Appeals will reverse a CRB decision if it was not in accordance with the law.

What the Court Said

The court vacated the CRB's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that it and the ALJ misunderstood the issue regarding the right knee injury.

"The ALJ's and CRB's analysis was fatally infected by their mistaken views about what [the player's] claims were," the court wrote. "At bottom, the ALJ found [the player] to be non-credible because her own testimony 'call[ed] into question whether she suffered a work-related injury to her right knee [on the date of the left knee injury], as alleged' -- but that was never her claim."

The court explained that the player's claim was that she experienced a left knee injury in 2001 or 2002 that eventually led to a right knee disability in 2015, and that claim was not assessed by the ALJ or CRB.

The court also pointed out that the ALJ and CRB both acknowledged that the player presented evidence of a workplace-related disability to her right knee sufficient to trigger the presumption of compensability, thereby shifting the burden to the team to present 'specific and comprehensive' evidence to rebut the presumption.

In particular, the player had an independent medical examination that concluded that her right knee condition was "causally related" to the left knee injury with a "reasonable degree of medical certainty."

The court reasoned that the ALJ and CRB erred in finding that the IME evidence was rebutted by a letter from her doctor stating that the player's right knee pain came on acutely and was treated in the emergency room.

The court found that this was a "stray statement" that was "at plain odds" with the player's medical records, which were "crystal clear" that she did not suffer a right knee injury that prompted the ER visit, which related to her left knee.

The Takeaway

While there might be evidence to rebut it, the player made a case that her right knee problems stemmed from the left knee injury she experienced playing for the team.

Share This Article: