Webster v. S.F. Employees' Retirement System CA1/4

Filed 9/11/24 Webster v. S.F. Employees’ Retirement System CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

JUSTIN W. WEBSTER, Petitioner and Respondent, A168995 v. (San Francisco City and County SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES’ Super. Ct. No. CPF-18-516230) RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellant.

San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System appeals from a superior court order setting aside an administrative agency’s denial of respondent’s Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) application and remanding the case to be reconsidered in light of new evidence pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e).1 Appellant argues the superior court erred in finding that respondent’s writ was not barred by failing to exhaust all administrative remedies and admitting two new medical reports. As explained below, we disagree and will affirm. BACKGROUND Justin W. Webster was a San Francisco police officer who was injured in the course of his employment. After a full evidentiary hearing, the

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.

1

administrative law judge denied Mr. Webster’s application for IDR. The administrative law judge found the retirement system’s medical expert more persuasive than Mr. Webster’s medical expert. Specifically, the administrative law judge found Mr. Webster’s medical expert did not rely on “objective evidence.” After the decision, Mr. Webster filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate. Additionally, Mr. Webster sought to return to work as a police officer. Before Mr. Webster could return to work, he was required to complete a medical examination. After completing this examination, the medical doctor found Mr. Webster was “not fit for duty.” In a companion workers’ compensation case, another medical doctor found Mr. Webster was not capable of performing his job duties. Mr. Webster filed a second IDR application. The retirement system declined to process his second IDR application. The superior court granted in part Mr. Webster’s petition for writ of mandate, setting aside the denial of his IDR application. The court rejected the retirement system’s argument that Mr. Webster had failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. The court ruled that requesting a rehearing based upon the same facts and law would have been futile. Finally, the court, relying on the two new medical reports, remanded the case for reconsideration. DISCUSSION I. Appealability Respondent contends the order is not appealable because the superior court did not decide the pivotal issue of whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s decision to deny his IDR application. Generally, a judicial order is appealable once the court renders a final judgment. (Dhillon