Brewington v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review

309 A.2d 112, 1973 D.C. App. LEXIS 349
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided September 4, 1973·No. No. 6029·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After two remands for appropriate findings of fact, D.C.App., 299 A.2d 145; D. C.App., 287 A.2d 532, this case is before us to review an Order involuntarily separating Officer Brewington (petitioner) from the Metropolitan Police Department based on disability not incurred in or aggravated by the performance of duty, pursuant to D.C.Code 1967, § 4-526.

Petitioner’s primary contention is that the government failed to carry its burden of proof when it found that his disability (manic-depressive reaction) was not aggravated by the performance of duty as a police officer. It is conceded by petitioner that his disability was not contracted in the performance of duty. We affirm.

The government’s evidence reveals the following: that petitioner had problems with authority (i.e., pointing his revolver at some people while off duty), rhubarbs about tardiness, blocked a driveway with his car, feelings that he was addressed and treated in a derogatory manner by his superiors, feelings that the whole world was against him, ideas that his telephone was tapped by the Intelligence Division, that he was under police surveillance, and that someone was trying to harass him and eventually get him fired or send him to the Trial Board. The psychological examination revealed petitioner as a man with a history of depressive withdrawal, excitement and projection. According to the psychiatrist, this psychothymic illness means a type of personality structure in which there are marked up-swings and down-swings, great extremes of excitement and depression which can alternate. When we consider the respondent’s Findings No. [113]*1132 through 6,1 which are not in dispute with the evidence introduced in this record, we cannot say that respondent was in error when it found that petitioner suffers from a mental disorder “caused or aggravated by pressures of life stemming from his background and childhood” rather than from police duty.

We hold that respondent has carried the burden of proof with substantial evidence irrespective of the holding in Johnson v. Board of Appeals and Review, D.C.App., 282 A.2d 566 (1971), that the burden of proof is upon petitioner and not the government to show aggravation.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brewington v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 309 A.2d 112, 1973 D.C. App. LEXIS 349 (D.C. 1973).

309 A.2d 112 (Brewington v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stoner v. District of Columbia Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board
368 A.2d 524 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)
Stoner v. DISTRICT OF COL. POL. & FIRE., ETC.
368 A.2d 524 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)