Legal Opinion · Dissent
Porter v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 17, 1986No. 85-1284Published
1DissentRogers, Associate Judge
The majority correctly states that in determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s denial of benefits, “this court’s function in review is not to weigh the testimony and substitute itself for the trier of fact who receives conflicting evidence and determines the weight to be accorded to such evidence.” Supra at 1022. McLean v. Department of Employment Services, 506 A.2d 1135, 1136-37 (D.C.1986). But neither can the court ignore a record which contains no evidence explaining the meaning of Dr. Cooney’s ambiguous statement on April 18, *10241984, or the relevance of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Mary R. Wheatley v. Herman Adler, Deputy Commissioner, United States Department of Labor Bureau of Employees' CompensationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Hughes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.