Whitehurst v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain respondents’ determination that he is not entitled to disability retirement. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.
The Board found that petitioner’s heart condition-a “Wolf-Parkinson-White Syndrome”-was not aggravated by the performance of duty. This conclusion is supported by the expert medical testimony before the Board. There being substantial support in the administrative record, we cannot disturb the Board’s findings.
The Board found that petitioner’s condition disqualified him from the full performance of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seabolt v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
3Cited by7 opinions
- Woody v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Liberty v. District of Columbia Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Rzepecki v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Rzepecki v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Wells v. Police & Firefighter's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.