Craver v. City of Los Angeles

Opinion

BEACH, J.

Earl Graver appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate. Appellant injured his back in 1959 while working as a police officer. He thrice applied to the board of pension commissioners for a disability pension, claiming that his back injury made it impossible for him to perform the regular duties of a police officer. Said applications were

[78]

denied in 1961, 1967 and 1969. On May 14, 1971, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court; on December 2, 1971, he filed a notice of application for peremptory writ of mandate. On February 8, 1972, judgment was entered; the peremptory writ was denied. This appeal follows:

Facts

On November 24, 1959, appellant injured his back while lifting a small car during the course of his duties as a police officer. He suffered pain from the injury and in May I960 had a laminectomy. His back allegedly continued to bother him, he was frequently off duty, and he was assigned to a sedentary job as a complaint board operator within the police department. Obtaining a permit from the department, he did some outside work at the Los Angeles Times and, without a permit, did some television work as a stuntman.

1

He maintains that he has great difficulty performing even the sedentary job to which he was assigned, cannot possibly perform the usual duties of an officer, and therefore should have been given a disability pension.

There are doctors’ reports in the record for each of his three applications to the board of pension commissioners. Almost all of them recognize that appellant’s injuries precluded hisworkingin the field as anofficer. They were split as to his ability to perform sedentary work for the police department.

The trial court herein, while observing “there is strong evidence to the contrary,” stated that substantial evidence supported the decision of the board. The court felt “[tjhis is not a proper case for an independent review.” Furthermore, the court apparently believed that “inability to perform every task reasonably incident to the ordinary outside duties of a policeman” is not the basis for disability “when there are less demanding positions available, as in this case.” There were no findings of fact or conclusions of law.