In Bowman v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1984) 155 Cal. App. 3d 937, a fireman applied for a disability pension, which was denied. The fireman then attempted to return to work, but an examination conducted on behalf of the fire department resulted in findings that limited the fireman to light duty. When no suitable position could be found, the fireman sought permission to reapply for disability benefits as permitted by the rules of the Board of Pension Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles. Permission was denied, and the fireman then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, asking for an order compelling the Board to permit him to reapply based upon evidence showing that his condition had deteriorated. The petition was denied. (Bowman v. Board of Pension Commissioners, supra, 155 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 940-942.) The Court reversed, finding that the Board had violated its own rule, which required it to grant an application to reapply for disability benefits upon a showing that the applicant's condition had substantially deteriorated (a showing that had, in fact, been made in Bowman). (Bowman v. Board of Pension Commissioners, supra, 155 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 944-946.) The Court explained that, under the rules governing the Board, the degree of incapacity warranting a finding of disability (in the first place or on reapplication) was "defined" by the decision "whether the applicant's physical or mental incapacity results in the applicant's inability to perform his duties." (Id. at p. 947.) The Court held that the fire department's inability to find a suitable position for the fireman in itself warranted reconsideration of his application, and that the Board's refusal to exercise its discretionary power to permit the fireman to reapply was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at pp. 947-948.) We directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandate compelling the Board to grant the fireman's "request for a hearing on his reapplication for a disability pension." (Id. at p. 948.)