Paxton

Paxton v. Bd. of Admin.

Good Law
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 686·35 Cal. App. 5th 553
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 2019C086204California2,851 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Renner, J.

*555 Plaintiff Dr. Robert Paxton reviews claims for disability benefits for the Department of Social Services, where he is still employed. This dispute arose after the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that compensation Paxton received as part of a bonus program will not be considered when calculating his future pension benefit. This appeal is taken from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging a decision by the Board of Administration of CalPERS upholding this interpretation. The trial court's *556 conclusion that the bonuses Paxton earned were for performing additional services outside his regular duties, and thus not appropriate for consideration when calculating his pension benefit, is supported by substantial evidence. For this reason, we will affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

The Department of Social Services is the state agency responsible for determining, through its Disability Determination Service Division, the medical eligibility of disabled Californians who are seeking federal Social Security benefits or state Medi-Cal benefits. Paxton is a medical consultant-psychiatrist who reviews claims for…

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.