In Craver v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 76, a police officer injured his back lifting a small car in the line of duty. Most of the opinion is dicta, because the trial court had not used the independent judgment test, and therefore the case had to be sent back to the trial court for it to exercise its independent judgment for the first time. (See id. at pp. 78-79.) In comments for the benefit of the trial court on remand, the court addressed the issue of the availability of "permanent light duty assignments" and simply said that where there are such assignments, a claimant "should not be retired if he can perform duties in a given permanent assignment within the department." ( Id. at pp. 79-80.) The court then observed -- switching back to a generic, rather than specific context -- that such a claimant "need not be able to perform any and all duties performed by firemen, or, in the instant case, policemen." (Id. at p. 80.) If a person can be "employed in such an assignment," meaning a light duty assignment within the department, "he should not be retired with payment of a disability retirement pension." (Ibid.)