employer has rebutted presumption in District of Columbia

2002The examiner must presume a causal relation between the present disability and the work-related injury, unless “the employer has rebutted the presumption by ‘evidence specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection’ between the two.” Id. at 847 (emphasis added) (quoting Parodi v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 560 A.2d 524, 526 (D.C.1989)); see also Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 700 A.2d 787, 791 (D.C.1997) (stating that burden shifts to employer to produce “substantial evidence” demonstrating that the disability did not arise o

1997See also Baker, supra, 611 A.2d at 550 (requiring a presumption that claimant’s lower back disability was causally related to an earlier job-related accident rather than solely to his pre-existing osteoarthritis). • The examiner is thus required “to view the causal relation between a present disability and a job-related injury through the lens, as it were, of the statutory presumption, unless the employer has rebutted the presumption by evidence specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection between the two.” Whittaker, supra, 668 A.2d at 847 (citations omitted). 5 B.

2002The examiner must presume a causal relation between the present disability and the work-related injury, unless “the employer has rebutted the presumption by ‘evidence specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection’ between the two.” Id. at 847 (emphasis added) (quoting Parodi v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 560 A.2d 524, 526 (D.C.1989)); see also Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 700 A.2d 787, 791 (D.C.1997) (stating that burden shifts to employer to produce “substantial evidence” demonstrating that the disability did not arise o

1995Parodi, 560 A.2d at 526 (citation omitted).

2018See Stewart v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 606 A.2d 1350 , 1353 (D.C. 1992) ("[I]n assessing the weight of competing medical testimony in worker compensation cases, attending physicians are ordinarily preferred as witnesses to those doctors who have been retained to examine the claimant solely for purposes of litigation.") Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 831 A.2d 913 , 920 (D.C. 2003) (treating physician "admittedly did not know [claimant's] full history of head trauma, prior headaches and related symptoms, nor that [claimant] engaged in a v

2018See Stewart v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 606 A.2d 1350 , 1353 (D.C. 1992) ("[I]n assessing the weight of competing medical testimony in worker compensation cases, attending physicians are ordinarily preferred as witnesses to those doctors who have been retained to examine the claimant solely for purposes of litigation.") Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 831 A.2d 913 , 920 (D.C. 2003) (treating physician "admittedly did not know [claimant's] full history of head trauma, prior headaches and related symptoms, nor that [claimant] engaged in a v

2002The examiner must presume a causal relation between the present disability and the work-related injury, unless “the employer has rebutted the presumption by ‘evidence specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection’ between the two.” Id. at 847 (emphasis added) (quoting Parodi v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 560 A.2d 524, 526 (D.C.1989)); see also Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 700 A.2d 787, 791 (D.C.1997) (stating that burden shifts to employer to produce “substantial evidence” demonstrating that the disability did not arise o

1997See also Baker, supra, 611 A.2d at 550 (requiring a presumption that claimant’s lower back disability was causally related to an earlier job-related accident rather than solely to his pre-existing osteoarthritis). • The examiner is thus required “to view the causal relation between a present disability and a job-related injury through the lens, as it were, of the statutory presumption, unless the employer has rebutted the presumption by evidence specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection between the two.” Whittaker, supra, 668 A.2d at 847 (citations omitted). 5 B.

1997See also Baker, supra, 611 A.2d at 550 (requiring a presumption that claimant’s lower back disability was causally related to an earlier job-related accident rather than solely to his pre-existing osteoarthritis). • The examiner is thus required “to view the causal relation between a present disability and a job-related injury through the lens, as it were, of the statutory presumption, unless the employer has rebutted the presumption by evidence specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection between the two.” Whittaker, supra, 668 A.2d at 847 (citations omitted). 5 B.