Raygoza

Raygoza v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 4th 1240·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 835·21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896·93 Daily Journal DAR 10474·58 Cal. Comp. Cases 555
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 1993B064989California2,216 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ortega, J.

We reverse the trial court’s decision denying appellant Ronald Raygoza’s petition for a writ of mandate compelling reinstatement to his job.

Background

Raygoza, a Los Angeles County deputy marshal, applied for workers’ compensation on December 12, 1983, claiming injury to his psyche, as the result of a May 21, 1982, shootout. On October 24, 1986, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued an award to Raygoza, which contained a work restriction that “precluded [him] from situations where he may have to use a weapon.”

The Marshal of the Municipal Courts of Los Angeles County sent Raygoza a letter on May 12, 1987, notifying him that the office had no permanent light-duty positions and that the work restriction was incompatible with the duties of a deputy marshal. Raygoza was relieved of duty (fired) and told that if he did not file for retirement within 30 days, the office would do so on his behalf.

Raygoza did not file, so on June 15,1987, the marshal filed for a disability retirement on his behalf. A year and a half later, on December 13, 1988, the retirement board denied the application. Upon receipt of the decision, Raygoza requested reinstatement of his…

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.