September, 2013 - Riverside Sheriffs' Association
September, 2013 - Riverside Sheriffs' Association
September, 2013 - Riverside Sheriffs' Association
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Legal<br />
Continued from page 13<br />
- whether it be CalPERS, the<br />
County Employees’ Retirement<br />
Act, or some other municipal entity<br />
- has found a worker eligible<br />
to return to his or her job, it is<br />
not the final determining factor,<br />
and the employer indeed has the<br />
right or obligation - particularly<br />
under Government Code §1031<br />
- to ensure the worker meets<br />
certain minimum standards<br />
for a public safety officer and<br />
“be found to be free from any<br />
physical, emotional, or mental<br />
condition that might adversely<br />
affect the exercise of the powers<br />
of a peace officer”. This section<br />
goes on to state that physical<br />
condition shall be evaluated by a<br />
licensed physician and surgeon,<br />
and emotional and mental<br />
condition shall be evaluated by<br />
either a physician and surgeon<br />
who holds a valid California<br />
Legal Corner<br />
license to practice medicine or<br />
a psychologist licensed by the<br />
California Board of Psychology.<br />
The Court in several decisions<br />
has acknowledged that the<br />
employer/Retirement System<br />
cannot deny a disability retirement<br />
on the basis of no disability<br />
and then through another arm of<br />
the employment entity (such as<br />
the sheriff, police chief, or Highway<br />
Patrol commissioner) claim<br />
that there is a disability which<br />
justifies denying employment income<br />
to the worker. If the employer<br />
and the Retirement Board<br />
do not agree that the employee is<br />
entitled to a disability retirement,<br />
the employer’s recourse is<br />
to seek judicial review of the Retirement<br />
Board’s decision. If this<br />
review is not pursued, the employee<br />
must be reinstated, with<br />
the strong possibility the employer<br />
will have to pay back<br />
wages and other ancillary benefits<br />
for the period of time they<br />
denied re-employment, pursuant<br />
to Phillips v. County of Fresno.<br />
Have an idea for an article?<br />
Then let us know about it!<br />
The APB is your association publication. If you<br />
have an article, or have an idea for an article<br />
you would like us to pursue, send the idea along.<br />
Suggestions can be for just about anything,<br />
including:<br />
• News and developments relevant to the law<br />
enforcement community<br />
• A profile on an interesting member<br />
• Personal anecdotes and stories<br />
• Professional advice from your area of<br />
expertise<br />
Send your ideas and articles to<br />
julie@rcdsa.org<br />
Page 14 • All Points Bulletin Issue 9, <strong>2013</strong>
Change language