Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners
Decision Date | 15 November 1983 |
Citation | 197 Cal.Rptr. 111,149 Cal.App.3d 532 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Larry D. WINN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Civ. 68334. |
Shaffer & Associates and Larry Joel Shaffer, Encino, for petitioner and appellant.
Ira Reiner, City Atty., Siegfried O. Hillmer, Asst. City Atty., Mary Jo Curwen and Beverly E. Mosley, Deputy City Attys., for respondent.
*
Appellant, Larry D. Winn, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate. We affirm.
Appellant is a former member of the Los Angeles Police Department. He commenced his employment as a police officer with the City on October 6, 1968.
Appellant worked car patrol duties through the latter part of 1977. In August of 1975, and April of 1976, he received orthopedic injuries while on duty. As a result of the injuries, he was off work periodically. Toward the end of 1977, he was placed on a light duty desk assignment.
About May of 1976, appellant began to have personality conflicts with other members of the police department and developed emotional problems.
Beginning in February 1977, appellant filed for workers' compensation claiming injury to his back and psyche.
On November 20, 1978, appellant applied for a disability pension pursuant to section 190.12 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles. After several hearings, respondent Board of Pension Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, on January 10, 1980, denied appellant a disability pension.
On June 4, 1980, appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 challenging respondent's decision.
On May 20, 1982, the superior court denied the petition and this appeal followed.
At the superior court hearing, the court received over 800 pages of administrative record. Appellant also offered records of actions taken by and evidence submitted to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board after the date of the denial by the Board of Pension Commissioners. The trial court admitted this evidence. Part of Exhibit 68A is a two-page document dated May 18, 1981, consisting of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board form entitled "Stipulations with Request for Award" with various blanks filled in. The first line of the stipulations form reads "FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION PURPOSES ONLY." The next paragraph reads, in relevant part: "The parties hereto stipulate to the issuance of an Award and/or Order, based upon the following facts...: 1. Larry Dean Winn ... sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment
back and psyche
------
* * *
(parts of body injured)
3. The injury caused permanent disability of 48 1/4%, ..."
Exhibit 68A also included findings of fact and an award for permanent disability dated August 17, 1981, made by a workers' compensation judge pursuant to the above stipulation.
1. Whether the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board "Stipulations with Request for Award," dated May 10, 1981, and the "Findings of Fact and Award," dated August 17, 1981, are res judicata and collaterally estop respondent to deny appellant's application for a disability pension?
2. Whether the decision of the superior court was supported by substantial evidence?
Appellant contends that the "Stipulations with Request for Award" and the "Findings of Fact and Award" pursuant thereto, which were made after the denial of appellant's pension claim by respondent, should be res judicata and collaterally estop respondent from denying appellant a pension. Appellant argues that the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e), admitted the "Stipulations" and "Findings" as relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at the hearing before respondent. Having admitted the evidence, the trial court was bound to give it conclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Thus, the argument continues, under the independent judgment test applied by the trial court, the court was bound to find that the appellant was orthopedically and psychologically permanently disabled, and therefore entitled to a pension.
(4 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Judgment, § 147, p. 3292, and cases cited.) Where the subsequent action is on the same cause of action, a prior judgment is a complete bar. But where the subsequent action is on a different cause of action, the former judgment is not a complete merger or bar, but is effective as a collateral estoppel, i.e., it is conclusive on issues actually litigated between the parties in the former action. (Id., at p. 3293.)
Appellant urges that Dakins v. Board of Pension Commissioners for the City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 374, 184 Cal.Rptr. 576, is controlling on the issue of res judicata and collateral estoppel. In Dakins, a policeman had applied for a service-connected disability pension. The Board of Pension Commissioners found that the disability was not service connected. Prior to the pension board's finding, the policeman had filed a workers' compensation claim for the same disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found, prior to the pension board's finding, that the disability was service connected. On appeal, the appellate court held that the Pension Board was collaterally estopped to deny that the disability was service related. The court found that although the workers' compensation claim and the pension claim were not the same cause of action, the identical issue of whether or not the disability was service connected was litigated before the pension board and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The court also found that the workers' compensation finding was part of a final judgment, and that the parties (in both cases an entity or agent of the City of Los Angeles) were identical. (Id., at p. 387, 184 Cal.Rptr. 576.)
We find the Dakins case distinguishable in that in the instant case the issues considered by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and the Board of Pension Commissioners were not identical, and the workers' compensation award was a subsequent, and not a prior judgment.
Section 190.12 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles (the "Charter") provides as follows:
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board records dated September 27, 1979, show that appellant was found to have "sustained injury to his back and psyche arising out of and in the course of his employment." There was no finding that such injury was permanent. In the Stipulations with Request for Award, dated May 18, 1981, and the accompanying Findings and Award there is an adjudication that appellant was given a 48 1/4 percent permanent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunkin v. Boskey
...Cal. Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58; Vary v. Forrest (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1506, 1511, 247 Cal. Rptr. 873; Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 537, 197 Cal.Rptr. 111.) "`If "anything is left conjecture as to what was necessarily involved and decided" there can be no co......
-
Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass'n
... ... General, the CCC and the SLC on behalf of the public to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, without success, and then by an action for judicial ... Forrest (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1506, 1511, 247 Cal.Rptr. 873; Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 537, 197 ... ...
-
Ddunkin v. Boskey
...second suit. (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 954; Vary v. Forrest (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1506, 1511; Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 537.) " 'If "anything is left to conjecture as to what was necessarily involved and decided" there can be no collat......
-
Petrillo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist.
...by BART that appellant is capable of performing the duties to which he may be assigned. (See Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 536-541, 197 Cal.Rptr. 111.) Accordingly, there can be no res judicata or collateral estoppel from the WCAB Further support for this......
-
Appendix E
...entitled to give Williams’ opinion the weight to which they felt it to be entitled. ( Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 149 Cal. App.3d 532, 543.) The trial court explained its reasons for disregarding Williams’ opinion. It explained that Williams based his opinions on the PAS r......