 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Argomaniz v. City of Los Angeles9/30/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Manuel Argomaniz, a police officer formerly employed by respondent City of Los Angeles (the City), was fired after the Police Department Board of Rights (the Board of Rights) found that he had engaged in physical activity inconsistent with his "injury on duty" status (count 1) and engaged in off-duty employment without prior authorization and without a valid work permit (counts 2, 3). Appellant appeals following his unsuccessful petition for a writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1094.5) challenging the termination of his employment.
Contrary to appellant's contentions, (1) the punitive action taken by the Board of Rights was not barred by the statute of limitations, (2) respondents were not barred by a lack of jurisdiction, res judicata or judicial estoppel when they dismissed appellant without first seeking to reopen his case at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and raise in that forum the issue of benefits fraud, and (3) substantial evidence supports the finding that on multiple occasions while off duty appellant engaged in physical activity inconsistent with his "injury on duty" status. We thus affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On June 9, 1999, appellant suffered a torn rotator cuff on his left shoulder while playing softball on the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) softball team. In July of 1999, an orthopedic specialist classified appellant as "temporarily totally disabled from work," a declaration that was medically renewed periodically until appellant was released to return to light-duty work in July of 2001. For workers' compensation purposes, "total temporary disability" means that, in the doctor's opinion, the person is unable to perform his usual and customary occupation. According to the officer in charge of the LAPD's Medical Liaison Section, the LAPD expects that when an officer feels well enough to return to either full-time or restricted duty, the injured officer should inform his doctor so he can be medically evaluated and possibly cleared to return to work. The employee is "in essence is being paid by the [LAPD] to s ay home and get better and recuperate, so that he is able to return to work."
In September of 1999, appellant had surgery on his shoulder. He then received therapy and prescription medications, including hydrocodeine. His physical activity was restricted, and he was homebound until January of 2000. The doctor advised appellant that if his shoulder was improving, he should try to engage in normal activities, though the doctor still decided to keep him off work.
In January of 2000, however, an MRI for appellant's lower back revealed two herniated discs. Nonetheless, appellant acknowledged that in February or March of 2000 he felt he could have returned to light-duty status at work. Appellant admitted that by February or March of 2000 he was not "totally, temporarily disabled" in terms of performing the type of police desk work he had previously done for a year.
In October of 2000, appellant began medical treatment entailing some epidural injections in his back. Also in October, appellant was offered a light-duty job in the LAPD's Legal Affairs unit. Although appellant's doctors still recommended that he not return to work, and at that time the City's Personnel Department still deemed appellant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|