Davidson v. OEA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
N otice: This opinion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 04-CV-913 F RANCIS M. D AVIDSON, A PPELLANT, v. O FFICE OF E MPLOYEE A PPEALS, A PPELLEE, D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA F IRE & E MERGENCY M EDICAL S ERVICES D EPARTMENT, INTERVENOR. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (MPA3-03) (Hon. Frederick H. Weisberg, Trial Judge) (Argued October 13, 2005 Decided October 27, 2005) Jason C. Crump for appellant. Mary L. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General of the District of Columbia, and Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellee. Before S CHWELB, R EID and G LICKMAN, Associate Judges. PER CURIAM: On November 20, 2002, the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) affirmed an earlier decision of a Trial Board discharging Francis M. Davidson from the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Services Department for insubordination. Davidson appealed to the Superior Court, and on June 10, 2004, in a concise and wellreasoned written order, the trial judge (Weisberg, J.) affirmed the decision of the OEA. A copy of the trial judge s order is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Davidson filed a timely appeal to this court. 2 At the outset, we note that this court must conduct the identical review [of the OEA s decision] that we would undertake if this appeal had been heard initially in this court. Davis v. Univ. of the District of Columbia, 603 A.2d 849, 851 (D.C. 1992) (citations omitted). We agree with the trial judge s disposition of each of the issues raised. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the trial judge s order, the judgment appealed from is Affirmed.1 1 We have considered all of Davidson s other contentions and conclude that they are without merit. To the extent that Davidson raised issues and authorities during oral argument which were not included in his brief, counsel for the OEA had no opportunity to respond to them, and they are not properly before us. In re Shearin, 764 A.2d 774, 778 (D.C. 2000). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
