In Tapia v. County of San Bernardino (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 375, a deputy sheriff was injured in an altercation with a female inmate and requested and received a medical leave of absence without pay. In 1988, the deputy consulted a physician who said she could not return to work until after a December 19 appointment. On December 14, 1988, the deputy consulted another physician who considered her temporarily disabled and recommended she return to modified work duties to ease her back into the work force. On February 2, 1989, the county's occupational health service found the deputy was not medically qualified for regular duty, the deputy was medically qualified for light duty, and her department could not accommodate light duty and had not approved her for such duty. On June 15, 1989, the deputy unsuccessfully applied to the Board of Retirement of the San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association for service-connected disability retirement. A board referee also concluded the deputy was not disabled. Neither the deputy nor the county sought judicial review of the board's decision and the deputy returned to work in July 1990. ( Id. at pp. 379-380.) The deputy's counsel wrote the office of the sheriff to request back pay and benefits on her behalf but the sheriff did not respond. The deputy next successfully petitioned the superior court to compel the county to pay retroactive salary and benefits, pursuant to section 31725. The County of San Bernardino appealed and claimed the deputy was not "'dismissed'" within the meaning of section 31725 because she returned to work after the unfavorable board decision, and the deputy failed to comply with the statutory claim presentation requirements. ( Id. at pp. 381-382.) Tapia found the employee was dismissed on February 2, 1989, when the county's occupational health service found she was not medically qualified for regular duty coupled with the fact that the sheriff did not then approve her for light duty. "Accordingly, the employee was entitled to retroactive reinstatement as of February 3, 1989, the day following the effective date of the dismissal as defined by section 31725." (Ibid.) However, Tapia reversed the trial court's ruling because the deputy failed to comply with the statutory claim presentation requirements for retroactive salary and benefits.