This case involved a 1995 work injury to both wrists. The worker eventually returned to work but began treating again in 1998 and went back on TD in 1999.
In 2001 and 2002 she had multiple wrist and neck surgeries and filed for service-related retirement benefits (relating to upper extremity disabilities) in 2003.
At a hearing, the Retirement Board denied the worker's claim on the grounds that there was no proof presented that the worker was permanently incapacitated from performing what had become her usual duties. (All the doctors' reports, both examiners and treaters, described permanent, but only partial, disability.)
But the worker brought up the fact that her HR department had sent her a letter in 2003 stating that she was eligible for voc. rehab. because the industrial clinic had reported "... you will not be able to return to your usual job because of the effects of your work injury. . . ."
The worker argued that this letter alone supported her claim of eligibility for disability retirement despite all the medical reports to the contrary.
The Court reviewed the record and noted:
1. the author of the letter didn't even testify (not to mention whether he or she would even have been competent to do so since the letter came from the HR department, not a doctor),
2. there was no evidence presented as to which report the letter was even referring to,
3. there was no evidence presented that modified work was unavailable.
Based on this record then, the Court concluded that the Retirement Board's right to make its own independent judgment was entirely supported and affirmed its denial of service-connected disability retirement benefits.
The unpublished case is Gury v. San Bernardino Cty Emp. Retiremt Assn..
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE. *
- Help for the Injured Worker
