Austin v. Board of Retirement
Decision Date | 02 May 1989 |
Docket Number | No. B036645,B036645 |
Citation | 209 Cal.App.3d 1528,258 Cal.Rptr. 106 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Jason AUSTIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant. |
De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, and Bruce M. Hale, Deputy County Counsel Lewis, Marenstein & Kadar and Thomas J. Wicke, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
The Board of Retirement of the County of Los Angeles Employees' Retirement Association ("Board") appeals from the judgment granting a writ of mandate compelling the Board to award service-connected disability retirement benefits ("retirement benefits") to Jason L. Austin. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5) The sole issue presented on appeal is whether Austin is entitled to interest on the award of retroactive retirement benefits from the date he became entitled thereto to the date upon which he was granted such benefits. We determine Austin was entitled to the award of interest, and affirm the judgment.
Austin, a thirty-six year old Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff with twelve years of service, applied for retirement benefits on June 11, 1985, alleging a low back injury suffered while lifting a wooden cabinet at the Los Angeles County Jail, and allergies, resulting in permanent disability. (Gov.Code, § 31720 et seq.) His application was denied by the Board, and he pursued an administrative appeal. Following an evidentiary hearing conducted before a referee on October 21, 1986, the referee recommended that the Board deny Austin retirement benefits on the ground that he was not disabled. On April 29, 1987, the Board adopted the referee's findings and reaffirmed its previous decision finding that Austin was not disabled.
Austin filed a petition writ of mandate in the superior court, challenging the Board's decision. On April 18, 1988, judgment was entered granting the petition; on April 21, 1988, the writ issued as ordered, commanding the Board to set aside its decision denying Austin retirement benefits, grant him such benefits retroactive to his last day of service with interest at the legal rate assessed on the amount of the pension that was retroactive, and pay his attorney fees in the amount of $2,500.00.
The Board complied with the writ insofar as it was directed to grant Austin retirement benefits and pay his attorney fees; the appeal from the judgment is directed to that portion awarding Austin interest on the award of retroactive benefits.
The Board contends Austin is not entitled to prejudgment interest on retirement benefits retroactive to his last day of service, as the Legislature did not provide in the Retirement Act of 1937 for interest during the administrative process, and the Board was prevented by law from awarding retirement benefits prior to its decision following the referee's hearing.
The question whether Austin is entitled to interest from his last day of service on the retroactive portion of his award of retirement benefits is one of law, concerning which we exercise our independent judgment. (Estate of Madison (1945) 26 Cal.2d 453, 456, 159 P.2d 630.)
Pertinent to our discussion is subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 3287:
(Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 402, 197 Cal.Rptr. 843, 673 P.2d 720.)
The Board argues that had the Legislature intended to provide for the recovery of interest on disability pension payments due an applicant prior to the date upon which the Board denied such benefits, i.e., prior to completion of the administrative process, it would have so provided in the statutes establishing a comprehensive scheme for the determination and payment of disability retirement benefits. (Gov.Code, §§ 31720 et seq.) Such a provision would be redundant, as the Legislature provided elsewhere, and generally, in Civil Code section 3287 (supra ), for the recovery of interest from a debtor, including "any county," on an award of damages certain, or capable of being made certain, the right to recover which is vested in the claimant on a particular day.
As the court stated in Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 17 Cal.3d 671, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749, with regard to the statutes relating to benefits under the former aid to the needy disabled program (former Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 13500-13801), (17 Cal.3d at p. 679, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749.) In Tripp, former Welfare & Institutions Code section 10962 permitted an applicant or recipient of welfare benefits to seek judicial review of an adverse determination by the Director of the State Department of Social Welfare, and to do so without paying a filing fee. The section also authorized recovery of attorney's fees and costs by a successful recipient. The court stated, at page 679, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749: The Tripp court explained that the Legislature's inclusion of the provisions concerning filing fees, attorney's fees, and costs (Tripp v. Swoap, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 680-681, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749; fn. omitted.) The court went on to hold that interest was recoverable pursuant to subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 3287.
Similarly, in the present case, there is nothing in the statutory scheme governing disability pension benefits suggesting a legislative intent to preclude recovery of interest on damages awarded as prejudgment benefits from the date such benefits became due.
The Board argues the Legislature provided a remedy in lieu of interest for delays in the administrative process by enacting Government Code section 31725.7, which provides: "If a final determination is not made upon an application for disability retirement within 90 days after it is filed with the Board, the member may, if eligible, apply for, and the Board in its discretion may grant, a service retirement allowance pending the determination of his entitlement to disability retirement." (Emphasis added.) The argument is meritless. Many, many persons may be eligible for disability retirement benefits without also having reached the age and/or years of service requisite to eligibility for service retirement benefits. In the present case Austin, at age 36 with twelve years of service, would not become eligible for service retirement benefits for several years. (Gov.Code, §§ 31662.2, 31676.1, 31664.) Government Code section 31725.7 does not reflect an intent on the part of the Legislature to provide a remedy in lieu of that provided by Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a).
Finally, the Board contends Tripp does not apply, as the Board was prevented by law from awarding benefits until the administrative appeal process was completed. Interestingly, in Mass v. Board of Education (1964) 61 Cal.2d 612, 39 Cal.Rptr. 739, 394 P.2d 579, the Board of Education employed a similar argument based on another aspect of Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a), claiming interest accrued only from the date when the board bore the legal duty to reinstate a suspended teacher because until that time the " 'right to recover' did not 'vest' in him (Civ.Code, § 3287) and until then he was legally suspended." (Id., at p. 625, 39 Cal.Rptr. 739, 394 P.2d 579.) The court stated: (Ibid.)
The Board's argument in the present case, logically concluded, would preclude awards of interest pursuant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
...former position]; Aguilar, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at pp. 242-243, 272 Cal.Rptr. 696, and cases cited; Austin v. Board of Retirement (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532-1534, 258 Cal.Rptr. 106 [prejudgment interest is payable on award of wrongfully withheld disability retirement In Aguilar, supr......
-
Katz v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union
...Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 933, 938, 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 593 P.2d 200. Cf., Austin v. Board of Retirement (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1535, 258 Cal.Rptr. 106 [lack of entitlement decided as a matter of I. Education Code Analysis We first consider the statutory question......
-
Knight v. McMahon
...review. (Brooks v. State Personnel Bd. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1068, 1071-1072, 272 Cal.Rptr. 292; Austin v. Board of Retirement (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1531, 258 Cal.Rptr. 106.) 3. Administrative Judge Had Power to Award The question presented is not whether public assistance recipients ......
-
Palmer v. Stassinos
......, the right to recover which is vested in the claimant on a particular day.'") (citing Austin v. Board of Retirement, 209 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532, 258 Cal.Rptr. 106 (Cal.Ct.App.1989)); see also Mass v. Board of Education, 61 Cal.2d 612, 624, 39 Cal.Rptr. 739, 394 P.2d 579 (Cal.1964) (findi......