Mansell

Mansell v. Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1209·30 Cal. App. 4th 539·35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 574·94 Daily Journal DAR 16727·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9037
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 1994B069394California1,943 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Harnethia Mansell (Mansell), in propria persona, appeals a judgment denying her petition for writ of mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) against defendant and respondent Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) (hereafter referred to as the Board).

The issue is not Mansell’s basic entitlement to retirement benefits but only whether she is eligible for enhanced benefits. We address whether Mansell was injured while performing “particularly hazardous and dangerous” duties, which would entitle her to an enhanced retirement allowance. (Gov. Code, § 21292.6.)

Because the trial court properly concluded the injury was not sustained during a particularly hazardous or dangerous activity, the judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Mansell became a state safety member of PERS on January 1, 1983, by virtue of state employment. At the relevant time she was employed by the Department of Corrections as an academic teacher at the California Institution for Men at Chino (Chino). In addition to the usual teaching duties, teachers in Mansell’s job specification were required to maintain control and discipline in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.