HomeMy WebLinkAboutS20-City Attorney
Cl-R'OF SAN BERNARD~O - REQU& FOR COUNCIL AC.wON
Dept:
City Attorney
Subject: In the Matter of the Application of
KEITH THOMPSON for Disability
Retirement
From:
JAMES F. PENMAN
D~~ June 25, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Following a decision by the Public Safety Disability and Rehabilitation
Committee on January 30, 1987, that:
"1. Mr. Thompson is not physically incapacitated as
a Public Safety Officer,"
the Mayor and Common Council entertained the matter on appeal, pursuant
to City of San Bernardino Resolution No. 84-139, and on March 23, 1987,
issued a Statement of Decision in which it was found:
"Mr. Thompson is not physically incapacitated for the
performance of duties as a Public Safety Officer."
Recommen<:led motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council set aside their Findings and Statement
of Decision In the Matter of the Application of Keith L. Thompson, arrived
at following the hearing on March 23, 1987, to reopen this matter for
setting an evidentiary hearing to the accompanying rules and guidelines.
r
~
.,41,'1--">
r&-::
J .t'!..o-"1/_
Signature
/
..
Contact person:
James F. Penman
~'
Phone:
5122
Supporting data attached:
Yes
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
-0-
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
^___~_ ."__ ,,_ ~. -~IJ
.0. 0 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEI'T FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
In the case of Watkins v. City of Santa Ana, 234 Cal.Rptr. 406
(February, 1987) the court states that as the agency responsible
for determining disability the City is required to conduct an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether the applicant is capable
of performing his duties.
The operative language is found at page 408 of the Watkins decision:
"Here, (the applicant) had a fundamental vested
right to disability retirement benefits if, in
fact, he was disabled. The City's decision on
that threshold question substantially affects
that right. Therefore, a hearing is contemplated,
indeed required . . . "
We find such a hearing was not allowed in the present case. We
therefore recommend further review, accordingly, pursuant to the
accompanying rules and guidelines, which we otherwise recommend
for general implementation in Disability Retirement Hearings.