Clark Construction Group, LLC v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

I agree with the court’s affirmance of the CRB’s conclusions that Mr. Banks’s back symptoms were causally related to a workplace injury, ante at 775-76; and that Mr. Banks was entitled to temporary total disability benefits, ante at 776. I do not agree, however, with the court’s affir-mance of the CRB’s conclusion that Clark Construction failed to rebut the presumption of compensability as to Mr. Banks’s *777neck symptoms. Ante at 774-75. I therefore respectfully concur in the judgment in part and dissent in part.

In this case, an ALJ found that Mr. Banks had failed to demonstrate that Mr. Banks’s…