-11-
proceeds designated as reimbursement for medical care
attributable to the treatment of emotional distress. The record
does not disclose any such proceeds, as discussed infra.
Petitioner contends that the express characterization of the
disputed settlement amount is dispositive for purposes of the
applicability of the section 104(a)(2) exclusion. While not
apparent from the nature of the two causes of action underlying
petitioner’s complaint, petitioner asserts that the disputed
settlement amount was remitted to compensate him for various
debilitating physical ailments (i.e., migraine headaches,
stomachaches, and hand numbness) developed as a result of
repeated, vehement verbal assaults by the District’s Deputy Mayor
Carolyn Graham (the putative Graham assault).
For the reasons delineated below, we do not endow the
settlement’s characterization of the disputed settlement amount
with dispositive effect for purposes of the applicability of the
section 104(a)(2) exclusion. In brief, the record is devoid of
conclusive proof necessary to establish the requisite causal link
between petitioner’s averred maladies and the payment of the
disputed settlement amount. This evidentiary insufficiency
vitiates petitioner’s contention that his illness was symptomatic
of the species of ailments which are physical in nature within
the scope of the section 104(a)(2) exclusion. Additionally,
circumstantial evidence identified below indicates that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011