Gurule v. Board of Pension Commissioners

Opinion

HASTINGS, J. Board of Pension Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles (appellant) appeals the granting of a petition for writ of man[525]date filed by Leo R. Gurule (respondent) commanding appellant to find that respondent’s permanent disability was service-connected.

In the course of his employment as a police officer, respondent sustained an orthopaedic injury and at some subsequent time sustained psychiatric disability. While still employed, respondent made an application for a service-connected disability pension pursuant to the provisions of section 190.12 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles. After a hearing before appellant it was determined that respondent was incapable of performing his duties with the police department, but it was found that said incapacity was caused by reason of injuries other than injuries received in the discharge of his duties. Appellant concluded that respondent was only entitled to the benefit of a nonserviceconnected disability pension.

A petition for writ of mandate to the superior court was timely filed by respondent and was heard on October 12, 1979. The administrative record was received into evidence and the court exercised its independent judgment and weighed the evidence and after considering both written and oral arguments the court granted respondent a service-connected disability retirement pursuant to section 190.12(a) of the Los Angeles City Charter. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals.

Issue on Appeal

The court arrived at its decision by applying the law as stated in Gelman v. Board of Retirement (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 92 [149 Cal.Rptr. 225], and its interpretation of Government Code section 317201 which it applied to section 190.12(a) of the Los Angeles City Charter. Appellant concedes that Gelman correctly interprets section 31720 as it applies to service-connected disability claims but argues that the Gel-man reasoning does not apply to section 190.12(a) of the Los Angeles City Charter because the wording of the two sections is essentially different.

Discussion

The pertinent language in the two sections is as follows:

Section 190.12(a) provides: “(a) Service-Connected Disability. ... [A]ny System Member whom the Board shall determine has become