CHiP Wins Against CalPERS.

Until it was determined he was not able to perform the tasks required of an officer, plaintiff was a police officer with the California Highway Patrol [CHP]. The officer was treated for wrist and arm pain and a back condition. In 2004, he applied for the position of public affairs officer [PAO], which meant he was not assigned a beat to patrol, but also meant it was not a limited duty position. A PAO could be assigned to perform road duty, and was subject to being able to perform 14 critical activities required by the CHP. [including being able to extract a 200-pound victim from a vehicle and lift and carry and drag the victim 50 feet; physically subdue and handcuff a combative subject; change a flat tire; drive for extended periods of time; and, run up and down stairs.] The California Public Employees Retirement System [CalPERS] denied the officer’s application for disability retirement. In his petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, the CHP officer contended CalPERS erred in measuring his disability against his assigned duties as a public affairs officer, rather than against the usual duties of a CHP officer, including the 14 critical tasks. The trial court agreed with the officer, and entered judgment against CalPERS, directing it to set aside its decision denying the officer’s application for disability retirement. CalPERS appealed. Noting that it was undisputed the CHP directed plaintiff to leave the workplace because of his inability to perform the 14 tasks, the appellate court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s factual finding the plaintiff was unable to carry out the usual duties of a CHP officer.  (Beckley v. Board of Administration of California Public Employees’ Retirement System  (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 4; December 26, 2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 691, [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 51].