A bus driver appealed her denial of disability retirement benefits decision.
Originally, the worker had fallen down stairs while working in 1996 but denied any back injury at the time.
Then, in 1998, she sought treatment for a back strain after helping a passenger in a wheelchair.
The medical records indicated that she had actually injured her back a month before the wheelchair incident while gardening and that the wheelchair incident had aggravated that condition.
She was off work for 3-4 weeks.
She later said she made up the gardening incident and didn't report the wheelchair incident as work-related because she was afraid of being placed on light duty and didn't want to go through the workers' compensation system. She also thought she'd get more money through state disability and sick leave than through workers' comp.
The following year she began feeling more back pain, then felt a pop while helping another passenger. After briefly returning to work, she had back surgery several months later. Eventually she had 3 surgeries to her back and applied for disability retirement in 2002.
The retirement board denied her service-connected benefits, ruling that there wasn't substantial evidence to support her claim in light of the confusing and misleading information the doctors had when rendering their opinions.
A good part of the appellate court's ruling centered around the standard of review: Whether the Board should have used the "substantial evidence" measurement or the "independent judgment" standard.
The court agreed with the claimant that, since this involved a vested right, the "independent judgment" standard should have been used. But the court disagreed that the Board actually used the wrong standard and held that in fact the "independent judgment" standard was used, affirming the Board's finding.
"Plaintiff is mistaken that under this [independent review] standard '[w]hatever [the Board] did should not have any bearing on the adjudicative process of the trial court.'
Independent judgment review 'does not mean that the preliminary work performed by
the administrative board in sifting the evidence and in making its findings is wasted
effort. . . . [I]n weighing the evidence the courts can and should be assisted by the
findings of the board.' In
exercising its independent judgment, a trial court must afford a strong presumption of
correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the
administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence."
The case is Voda v. Board of Retirement of the
Orange County Employees Retirement System.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE. *
- Help for the Injured Worker
