Confidential
Settlement – $135,000Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The plaintiff was employed by the city of Los Angeles since Feb. 22, 1972 as a police officer. He was promoted to
the position of sergeant I on July 31, 1994. In August 1994, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident
while on duty and subsequently placed on "IUD" (injured on duty) status by the treating physician. He was off
work for 30 days and then sought to return to work.
However, because of his physical condition, he was then placed on disability. Thereafter, there was
disagreement regarding plaintiffÆs return to work on a light duty status.
The plaintiff contended that he informed his supervisor of his physical status and the city refused to offer him a
light duty assignment even though such positions were available to sergeants. In September 1995, after
receiving a workerÆs compensation permanent disability rating of 40 percent as the result of the motor vehicle
accident, plaintiff did not return to work.
During the time the plaintiff was off work, the defendant police department allegedly suspected him of
"malingering and abusing the system." The department conducted a subrosa surveillance/investigation in order
to confirm its beliefs. The information from the investigation was submitted to the treating physician who
could not make a decision regarding the plaintiffÆs status from the investigation videotapes. Following the
presentation to the treating physician, an internal affairs investigation was conducted based upon the
surveillance.
The result of the internal affairs investigation was to bring charges against plaintiff at the Board of Rights. The
charges alleged that "between on or about June 28, 1995 and Aug. 26, 1995, you, while on injured-on-duty
status, failed to return to work in a light duty assignment in a timely manner." The charges were later amended
to accuse plaintiff of not informing his physician that light duty assignments were available which the city
contended was his obligation.
Regardless of the charge against him, the plaintiff claimed that he sought to return to work and was not
permitted to do so. The Board of Rights found the plaintiff guilty of not informing the physician of the light
duty availability and thus demoted him from sergeant to police officer III and suspended him for 60 days.
The plaintiff then filed a petition for administrative writ and the trial court sent the matter back to the Board of
Rights for clarification of its ruling. At that time, the Board of Rights entered a new contention that the plaintiff
was guilty of violating ethics, core values and integrity of police service based on the sole finding of fact that
the plaintiff failed to inform his physician of the availability of light duty status.
The trial court then allegedly ruled solidly in favor of plaintiff and against the city. In doing so, the court made
three findings. It concluded that the department policy imposed no duty on the plaintiff to report the option of
light duty status to his physician and that the evidence indicated that the plaintiff had no intent to hide the
availability of light duty status.
The court further determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct. The
plaintiff was then returned to his previous position of sergeant I and given all his back pay and benefits.
On Nov. 12, 1998, the plaintiff filed the instant action alleging several causes of action. At the time of the
mediation, the only cause of action remaining in the trial court focused on intentional infliction of emotional
distress related to the defendant cityÆs handling of the matter and its treatment of the plaintiff.
Other Information
<M>A mediation was held before L. Randolph Lowry.</M> The plaintiff claimed that he suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of the actions of the city. He claimed that there was willful conduct on the part of the department in bringing charges against the plaintiff at the Board of Rights level for failing to inform his physician of his availability of a light duty assignment and later, for violating ethics, core values and integrity of police service. The plaintiff claimed that the addition of the admittedly important, but undefined charges of ethics, core values and integrity violations that were added by the Board of Rights after the trial court sent the matter back, was an attempt to find something against the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that the department was deliberate in its actions to charge and convict the plaintiff knowing full well the implications for his long career with the department.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390