Raygoza v. County of Los Angeles

In Raygoza v. County of Los Angeles (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1240, a deputy marshal applied for workers' compensation in 1983 claiming injury to his psyche as the result of a May 1982 shoot-out. in October 1986, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an award to the deputy marshal. The award included a work restriction which precluded the deputy marshal "'from situations where he may have to use a weapon.'" ( Id. at p. 1242.) In 1987, the Marshal of the Los Angeles County Municipal Courts notified the deputy his office had no permanent light-duty positions and his work restriction was incompatible with the duties of a deputy marshal. The deputy was relieved of duty (fired) and told the office would file for retirement on his behalf if he did not do so within 30 days. The deputy did not file for disability retirement and the office of the marshal did so on June 15, 1987. On December 13, 1988, the board of retirement denied the application. Upon receipt of the decision, the deputy requested reinstatement of employment. in January 1989, the board of retirement informed the marshal of the deputy's right to reinstatement unless the office of the marshal sought writ relief. The marshal filed a petition for writ but it languished because the marshal granted the deputy an open extension to answer. In the meantime, the deputy sought other remedies, including a full administrative hearing before the board of retirement. After the full hearing, the board of retirement found the deputy not disabled and denied the retirement application. The marshal refused to reinstate the deputy and the latter unsuccessfully petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate to compel reinstatement. ( Id. at pp. 1242-1243.) In Raygoza, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed and instructed the superior court to issue the writ of mandate. Although the court acknowledged "the dilemma in which the marshal finds himself," it found section 31725 was plain on its face and makes no exception where the employer claims to have no job available in light of a workers' compensation restriction. ( Raygoza, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 1245.)