 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hogan v. City and County of San Francisco10/19/2005
ny restrictions on Hogan's ability to work at the Department.
2. Workers Compensation Claim
At some point after Hogan failed to report to the CECC, he filed a claim with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in which he alleged that he suffered a psychological injury on April 10, 2000, when the Department placed him in a position at the CECC without adequately training him. As a result of this claim, Hogan was evaluated by Dr. Julie Stahl on June 19, 2000. Dr. Stahl summarized the results of her evaluation in a July 9, 2000, report.
Hogan told Stahl that he suffered from insomnia, preoccupation, poor concentration, decreased energy, depression and anxiety. Notwithstanding these problems, Hogan continued to enjoy various activities including playing soccer, going to the beach and engaging in activities with his children. Hogan also reported that he was under the care of a psychologist and that a psychiatrist had prescribed medications for him. Hogan found this treatment only minimally useful; in his view, the answer to his problems was a transfer to his old station and return to a 24-hour work shift which would not disrupt his home life.
Stahl concluded that Hogan did not suffer from a psychological disorder or disability. According to Stahl, "the predominant and substantial cause of Mr. Hogan's problems is the schedule change mandated by the move to the new communications center. That is, changing from a 24-hour work shift to a 12-hour work shift is the precipitating event resulting in firefighter Hogan's difficulties. A contributing but less important cause is his not being transferred back to the stationhouse as he had hoped."
Hogan's WCAB claim was denied on July 10, 2000.
3. Grievance
The record contains a copy of a "Grievance" which is dated April 12, 2000. On this form, Hogan complained that the Department's refusal to grant his transfer request prevented him from doing open lieutenant work and from gaining field experience for promotional purposes. In July 2000, Hogan's union advised him it would not pursue this grievance. On August 7, 2000, the union granted Hogan permission to pursue his grievance through a private attorney.
That attorney presented Hogan's grievance to the Department in a letter dated August 14, 2000. The City responded on behalf of the Department in a letter dated August 25, 2000. This letter stated, in part: "Firefighter Hogan has no right to any number of like-work, like-pay assignments and at this time it is not possible to grant Firefighter Hogan's request to return to the field. For your information, however, the Department recently trained 36 officers and members for Communications Center duty, and a second class is planned for September. Upon completion of the second round of training, the Department anticipates that Firefighter Hogan, along with other members reassigned to the Communications Center, will be rotated to their field assignments on the basis of seniority."
4. Request for Vacation Pay
Hogan was paid sick leave from April 12, 2000, until his accumulated sick pay was exhausted in July 2000. At that point, Hogan called the personnel center at the Department and asked to begin collecting accumulated vacation pay. William Carey, who was assigned to the personnel center, told Hogan he could not grant the request because Hogan was currently assigned to an administrative position and not to the field. Carey testified that he told Hogan to submit a written request to the head of the Communications Center.
In his declaration, Hogan stated that, when he asked Carey why his request for vacation pay was denied, Carey "refused t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|