## Facts

- Richard G. Graf worked as a professional football player for Pro-Football, Inc.
- Graf suffered a neck and arm injury during a preseason game on August 26, 1994, and was placed on injured reserve.
- Physicians offered conflicting diagnoses and return-to-play opinions:
  - Dr. Jackson (treating) diagnosed nerve-root irritation and, with Dr. Torg, opined Graf could play and did not have cervical stenosis.
  - Dr. Long diagnosed a bulging disc.
  - Dr. Kriss diagnosed cervical stenosis and opined Graf could not return to professional football.
- At the compensation hearing, the employer presented evidence suggesting any non-retention was based on skill level; Graf testified he was not notified of termination.
- The hearing examiner largely credited Dr. Kriss, found a permanent impairment preventing return to professional football, and found a weekly wage loss of $2,500.

## Issues

1. Whether the agency erred by crediting a non-treating physician’s opinion over treating physicians’ opinions when evaluating disability and causation.
2. Whether the findings of permanent impairment, inability to return to prior employment, and wage loss were supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the agency’s award of benefits, including permanent partial disability.
- The court held the agency permissibly weighed conflicting medical testimony and did not commit reversible error by relying primarily on Dr. Kriss.
- The court held the agency’s disability and wage-loss findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

## Legal Principles

- On review of workers’ compensation decisions, factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; the court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility.
- Treating-physician testimony is generally entitled to great weight, but the agency may credit a non-treating expert if it provides rational, record-based reasons for doing so.
- An agency’s conclusions will be sustained when they flow rationally from supported findings, including findings on medical causation, work restrictions, and resulting wage loss.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the award because the agency reasonably explained its choice among competing medical opinions and substantial evidence supported the determination that the work injury caused a permanent condition preventing Graf from returning to professional football and causing wage loss.


Pro-Football, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 782 A.2d 735 (D.C. 2001)