In a significant decision for public safety employees seeking disability retirement benefits, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, has upheld the denial of a deputy sheriff's application for service-connected disability retirement. The ruling in Alberto Mendoza v. Board of Retirement of the Ventura County Employees' Retirement Association (2025) 94 Cal.App.5th 1234 emphasizes the critical importance of complying with recommended medical treatments, even when personal fears or anecdotal concerns lead to hesitation. This case serves as a cautionary reminder that an unreasonable refusal to undergo advised procedures can bar access to essential retirement protections under the County Employees Retirement Law (CERL) and related doctrines.
The Appellant, a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff assigned to
the Todd Road Jail Facility, sustained two work-related back injuries. The
first occurred on December 30, 2014, when he slipped on stairs, causing lower
back discomfort. The second followed on May 27, 2015, during an altercation
with an inmate who kicked him in the waist. Diagnostic imaging revealed
degenerative disc disease at the L5-S1 level, along with a disc herniation and
extrusion abutting the right S1 nerve root. Multiple physicians, including the
Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Robert H. Fields and treating doctors Dr. Brian
Grossman and Dr. Sam Bakshian, unanimously recommended surgical intervention,
citing a high likelihood of successful outcomes—estimated at 90 percent for
good to excellent results given the deputy's youth and overall health.
Despite authorization from the County of Ventura and
repeated urgings from his medical team, the deputy declined the procedures. His
refusal stemmed from fears informed by colleagues' negative experiences with
back surgery and online research, which Dr. Fields characterized as based on
"bad information." Over time, his condition deteriorated, as
evidenced by subsequent MRIs showing progression of the discopathy. By 2017,
more extensive surgery, such as a spinal fusion, was deemed necessary, but even
then, he wavered before ultimately deciding against it. In 2018, another
evaluator noted improvement to the point where surgery was no longer indicated,
but the deputy's ongoing disability persisted, attributed in part to his
non-compliance with home exercises and other conservative measures.
The deputy applied for service-connected disability retirement
in May 2016, invoking Government Code sections 31720 et seq. The Ventura County
Employees' Retirement Association Board denied the application following an
administrative hearing, finding that his permanent incapacity resulted not from
the industrial injuries themselves but from his unreasonable refusal to submit
to recommended treatment. The trial court denied his petition for a writ
of administrative mandate, and the appellate court affirmed, relying on the
common law doctrine of avoidable consequences as articulated in Reynolds v.
City of San Carlos (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 208 and Labor Code section 4056.
The latter provides that no compensation is payable where disability is caused,
continued, or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to undergo medical or
surgical treatment, provided the risk is inconsiderable relative to the
injury's seriousness based on expert advice.
The court rejected the deputy's argument that the doctrine
should not apply because, unlike in Reynolds, the recommended surgeries
would not have enabled his return to full duty as a deputy sheriff. Instead, it
held that the principle extends to situations where timely treatment might have
prevented the worsening of the condition, even if the window for effective
intervention has closed due to delay. As the court explained, a retirement
board may reasonably conclude that the employee's inability to work stems from
their own choices rather than the work-related injury alone.
For California public safety unions and their members, peace
officers and firefighters alike, this ruling underscores both the protections
and pitfalls inherent in the disability retirement system. On the beneficial
side, it reinforces the expectation that employers and retirement boards must
base denials on substantial evidence of unreasonableness, considering factors
such as the treatment's success rate, risks, and the employee's informed
decision-making process. Employees facing similar dilemmas can leverage this to
advocate for comprehensive medical counseling and second opinions, potentially
strengthening their claims if refusal is deemed reasonable under the
circumstances.
However, the risks are substantial. Refusing treatment
perceived as low-risk and high-reward could forfeit not only retirement
benefits but also compound physical suffering through condition progression. In
high-stakes professions where injuries are commonplace, this decision
incentivizes prompt compliance with medical recommendations to preserve
eligibility for tax-advantaged disability pensions. It also highlights the
interplay between workers' compensation and retirement systems, where delays in
one arena can adversely affect the other.
Looking ahead, this ruling may influence future litigation by empowering retirement boards to more rigorously scrutinize applications involving treatment non-compliance. Public safety employees might see increased pressure from employers to pursue aggressive interventions, potentially leading to disputes over what constitutes "unreasonable" refusal—especially in cases involving psychological barriers like fear or cultural mistrust of surgery. Unions should consider negotiating enhanced support mechanisms, such as peer counseling or alternative treatment options, to mitigate these risks. Moreover, with the opinion now certified for publication, it establishes binding precedent statewide, likely prompting retirement associations in other counties to adopt similar stances.
Public safety professionals dedicate their careers to
protecting communities, often at great personal cost. Decisions like Mendoza
remind us that safeguarding one's own health through informed, timely action is
equally vital to securing the benefits earned through that service. For
personalized guidance on disability retirement claims or related matters,
members are encouraged to consult with experienced labor counsel.
