Koskinen v. Mendocino County Employees Retirement Assn. Bd. of Retirement CA1/1

Filed 6/30/14 Koskinen v. Mendocino County Employees Retirement Assn. Bd. of Retirement CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

KIMBERLY KOSKINEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A138926 v. MENDOCINO COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ (Mendocino County RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION BOARD Super. Ct. No. SCUKCVPT1260584) OF RETIREMENT, Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Kimberly Koskinen sought service-related disability retirement after an on-the-job automobile accident which she claimed resulted in a permanent psychiatric disability. Mendocino County Employees’ Retirement Association, Board of Retirement (Board) denied her a service-related disability retirement but approved a nonservice-related disability retirement. Koskinen challenged that determination by petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, which was denied. She appeals from that denial, asserting only that the court failed to exercise its independent judgment. We disagree and affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND We set forth only those facts relevant to the single issue raised on appeal. Because no issue of substantial evidence has been raised, we set forth the summary of the factual background taken from the superior court’s order. “[Koskinen] was employed by the County of Mendocino as an Eligibility Worker from 1993 until 2007. By all accounts, she was a diligent and productive employee. On

1

September 12, 2007 [Koskinen] was involved in a two car collision on Highway 20 while traveling to work in Ukiah. [Koskinen] unsuccessfully tried to return to work part time after the auto accident. Her last day of work with the County of Mendocino was October 16, 2007.” “[Koskinen] has acknowledged throughout this litigation that she suffers from psychological and medical conditions which are unrelated to the automobile accident of September 12, 2007. Her request for a service connected disability retirement is based on the aggravation of her preexisting psychiatric condition following the automobile accident.” “[Koskinen] filed her application for a service connected disability retirement on or about October 3, 2008. [The Board] referred the matter to Hearing Officer Robert Murray. Mr. Murray conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 20, 21, August 12 and December 13, 2011 which involved taking live testimony, review of deposition testimony and voluminous document review. Mr. Murray’s April 4, 2012 report recommended that [the Board] find that [Koskinen] was disabled from working as an Eligibility Worker for psychiatric and emotional reasons but deny [her] application for a service connected disability retirement. On April 19, 2012, [the Board] adopted the Hearing Officer’s recommendation.” Koskinen filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court. The court denied the petition after reviewing “the complete Administrative Record.” DISCUSSION Koskinen raises only one issue in this appeal—“whether the Superior Court applied the correct standard of review.” She claims the court did not exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the administrative record and, instead, incorrectly applied the substantial evidence standard. Whether the trial court applied the correct standard of review is a question of law we review de novo. (Alberda v. Board of Retirement of Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 426, 434 (Alberda).)