Trent v. Fresno Cnty. Emps' Ret. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 06 January 2023
• Docket Number: F083056
• Parties: CHARLOTTE TRENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

CHARLOTTE TRENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant.

F083056

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

January 6, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, No 20CECG02049 Rosemary T. McGuire, Judge.

Baker Manock &Jensen, Kenneth J. Price, Michael J. Fletcher Craig W. Armstrong, Peter G. Fashing for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of William R. Delaney, William R. Delaney for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SMITH J.

The Board of Retirement of Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association (Board or retirement association) denied Charlotte Trent's application for a service -connected disability retirement. Trent filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court to set aside the Board's determination, which the superior court granted. The Board appealed, contending the superior court erroneously considered hearsay evidence included in the administrative record and that the superior court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We reject the Board's contentions and affirm the superior court's judgment.

GENERAL FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

The following factual and procedural overview is largely excerpted from the superior court's statement of decision.

"As a child, [Trent] had scoliosis with attendant back problems through the age of 14. At that time (1984), she underwent back surgery to have scoliosis rods [Harrington rods] put in place in order to support her spine....

"[Trent] was hired as an Office Assistant with the County of Fresno on November 1, 1999, and was thereafter promoted to Account Clerk, [and] continued to work as such through 2002. Between 2002 and 2004, [Trent] worked in the private sector, and on December 6, 2004, she returned to working at the County on a full-time basis as an Account Clerk, and was employed [at the County Auditor's Office] until she was terminated on June 15, 2015.

"[Trent's] position with the County Auditor's Office was Account Clerk III. The job description includes bookkeeping, record maintenance, review and preparation, posting and adjusting account records, resolving account discrepancies, auditing and verifying charges/fines, report preparation, operating office equipment, obtaining and providing information to/from the public, vendors, and County departments, and training. Additional duties 'may' include translating assisting in developing/evaluating bookkeeping processes, assigning/reviewing/coordinating staff work, and general clerical tasks .... This job is considered a 'light duty' position.

"[Trent] was injured on the job on March 8, 2012, in a stairwell of the County Auditor's Office. [Trent] was walking up the stairs from the basement when a man weighing about 200 pounds who was walking on the first floor somehow lost his footing at the top of the stairs and fell downward, colliding with [Trent]. The force of this collision caused [Trent] to fall backwards towards the wall where she struck her 'whole back and head and buttocks and everything' against the wall and suffered a cut lip when the patron's head struck hers. [Citation.] She was transported to Community Medical Center, where she was treated and released. About a month later, she was x-rayed and it was determined that she had suffered transverse process fractures at the L1, L2, and L3 vertebrae.

"[Trent] filed a Worker's Compensation claim as a result of the accident. [Citation.] She received extensive medical treatment from various providers related to debilitating back pain resulting from the workplace injury. This included multiple imaging [studies], various medications, trigger point injections, multiple epidural injections, and in February 2014 she underwent surgery to remove the Harrington rods. While she felt some relief from this, the pain still remained, and she state[d] it has only worsened over time. She had more therapy, additional trigger point injections, and ongoing strong narcotic medications, such as Fentanyl, OxyContin, cyclobenzaprine and gabapentin.

"[Trent] was on medical leave between March 8, 2012 and August 6, 2013, although County records indicate she returned to work four non-consecutive days during that period, including attempting to work on August 5-6, 2013. On August 6, 2013, she again began an approved medical leave of absence due to the on-the-job injury. On November 24, 2014, [Trent] attempted a 'work hardening' program under the direction of [her primary treating physician] Dr. [Tuan] Tran, with the agreement of the County, whereby she would return to work on a part-time basis - four hours a day, five days a week - with ten-minute breaks every hour. However, she was unable to work even under these restrictions, with the County documenting that she was only at work for the full four hours on 64 of these days, missed the entire day on 60 occasions, and part of the day [on] 6 occasions. The County claimed that she failed to provide a doctor's note for unscheduled absences, as required, for 22 of her absences.

"On June 17, 2015, the County dismissed [Trent] from employment with an Order for Disciplinary Action, outlining the above-mentioned details, indicating that neither she nor her doctor could say when she could return to work [on] a modified schedule, let alone return to full-time work, and setting forth the hardships this was creating for the Auditor/Controller's department....

"On September 3, 2015, [Trent] applied for service-connected disability retirement, which the . Board [of the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association] denied at a meeting on September 20, 2017, with notice to [Trent] on September 28, 2017. On October 24, 2017, [Trent] requested [an administrative] hearing on the matter. The matter was referred to Referee Pilar Vaile, who presided over an evidentiary hearing [or administrative hearing] on November 5, 2019. On January 27, 2020, [Referee] Vaile issued a detailed 73-page 'Referee's Recommended Decision' in which she recommended that [Trent's] Application for Service-Connected Disability Retirement be granted.

"However, [the Board of the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association] decided, in accordance with Government Code section 31534 and Section IV.1.ii.2 of the [retirement] association's policy, to require a transcript of the testimony plus all the other evidence received by the Referee, and take such action as it felt appropriate. After doing so, on May 6, 2020, the board, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, approved its Findings of Fact and Decision ('Decision') which rejected the Referee's recommended decision and instead denied [Trent's] application for service-related disability retirement. [Trent] then filed [a] petition for administrative writ [in the superior court], asking that the court overturn [the board's] Decision and require it to grant her disability-related retirement."

The superior court, Judge Rosemary McGuire, granted Trent's petition for writ of mandate, and ordered "the Board of Retirement of the Fresno County Employees' Association to vacate its decision and to instead grant [Trent's] application for a service-connected disability retirement benefit."

The Board of Retirement of the Fresno County Employees' Association now appeals the superior court's judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. The Superior Court's Decision is Supported by Substantial Evidence

A. Standard of Review Utilized by the Superior Court in Reviewing the Administrative Determination

The superior court adjudicated Trent's petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5." 'Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision providing the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered'" in an administrative proceeding. (Paxton v. Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 553, 559; Poncio v. Department of Resources Recycling &Recovery (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 663, 668-669 [" 'Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the basic framework by which an aggrieved party to an administrative proceeding may seek judicial review of any final order or decision rendered by a state or local agency.' "].)

When the trial court reviews an administrative decision pursuant to a petition for a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (section 1094.5), it reviews the decision for abuse of discretion. (§ 1094.5.) "Abuse of discretion is established if ... the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." (§ 1094.5, subd. (b).) A trial court uses two alternative standards of review in reviewing an administrative decision in an administrative mandamus proceeding. The two alternative standards of review are the" 'independent judgment'" standard of review and the" 'substantial evidence'" standard of review. (Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1280 (Benetatos).)

Here the superior court applied the "independent judgment" standard of review, hence we will address the applicability and contours of this standard." 'If the administrative decision involved or substantially affected a "fundamental vested right," the superior court exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence ... [and] must examine the administrative record for errors of law and exercise its independent judgment upon the evidence.'" (Benetatos, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1280; Alberda v. Board of Retirement of Fresno County Employees' Retirement Assn. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 426, 433 (Alberda) [the trial court exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence when it reviews an administrative decision...