In Leili v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 148 Cal. App. 3d 985, a veteran Los Angeles County firefighter sustained work-related back injuries and obtained workers' compensation benefits because he had lost approximately one-fourth of his capacity for bending and lifting. Although the workers' compensation judge restricted the firefighter to "'no very heavy work,'" the county fire department informed him the work restrictions were incompatible with a firefighter's duties. ( Id. at p. 986.) The department gave him the options of seeking a revision of the work restriction, filing for service-connected disability retirement, or requesting rehabilitation, i.e., training for other work. Appellant was taken off active duty and he applied for service-connected disability retirement. Finding no disability, the county denied his application for service-connected retirement in 1978 and the board of retirement denied his application for a disability retirement allowance in 1980. ( Id. at p. 987.) He returned to active duty in September 1980 and unsuccessfully applied for his full salary between November 1977, when workers' compensation benefits terminated, to September 1980, when he returned to work. The superior court denied his petition for writ of mandate to compel such payment. (Ibid.) In Leili, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed and noted the firefighter "found himself in a powerless position: the county fire department had determined that he was unable to work because of his work restrictions and the retirement board had determined that he was not entitled to a disability retirement." ( Leili, supra, 148 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 987-988.) Leili reaffirmed that section 31725 was enacted to address this unfairness and "to eliminate severe financial consequences to an employee resulting from inconsistent decisions between an employer and the retirement board concerning the employee's ability to perform his duties." ( Id. at p. 988.) Leili found that McGriff was legally indistinguishable from the firefighter's predicament, and concluded the trial court erroneously denied his application for reinstatement. ( Id. at p. 989.)