KELLY v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Filed 7/26/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| CONSTA KELLY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant. | B176552 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS085621) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Reversed.
Law Offices of Hausman & Sosa, Jeffrey M. Hausman and Larry D. Stratton for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Steven R. Pingel, Steven R. Pingel and Larry J. Roberts for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Recognizing a local government employer might dismiss an employee after determining the employee is incapacitated and unable to perform his or her job duties or those of an alternative position only to have the county retirement board subsequently conclude the employee is not entitled to a disability retirement, the Legislature in 1970 amended the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.)[1] to add language designed to protect the affected employee. In addition to confirming the role of the county retirement board as the final arbiter of permanent incapacity for the performance of job duties, section 31725 provides, when a county employee is dismissed from his or her employment for permanent disability and the employee's application to the local retirement board for a service-connected disability retirement is thereafter denied on the ground he or she is not permanently disabled, the employer must, following the finality of the retirement board's decision, reinstate the employee retroactive to the date of dismissal and provide back pay and other benefits that would have otherwise accrued during the dismissal period.
In Stephens v. County of Tulare (2006) 38 Cal.4th 793 (Stephens), decided in late May 2006, the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the term â€
