Opinion ID: 1421477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Level of Performance

Text: Because of its conclusion, the majority did not reach the issue of the necessary level of performance which constitutes average efficiency. The majority does, however, at page 491, refer to  all necessary job duties, (italics mine) without elaborating. Appellant Malland asserts that a return to duty requires an ability to perform all ordinary duties. (This is significant in his case because of medical testimony that he should not be exposed to gunfire.) In response, the Department argues that a return to duty requires the ability to perform a reasonable range of duties  in essence an argument for assignment to light duty, at the same rank or grade. The language of the statute, WAC, and a prior Washington case support the Department's position. The statute provides for return to work at the same civil service rank, but protects the claimant from assignment at a reduced rank. RCW 41.26.140. The statute distinguishes between position and rank, defining position to mean the employment held at any particular time, which may or may not be the same as civil service rank. RCW 41.26.030(21). Thus the intent of the statute must be taken to require a return to work in the department at the same rank, but not necessarily to the same position. The WAC refers to ability to perform at average efficiency. WAC 415-105-060. In addition it provides That no member shall be entitled to a disability retirement allowance if the appropriate authority advises that there is an available position for which the member is qualified and to which one of such grade or rank is normally assigned and the board determines that the member is capable of discharging, with average efficiency, the duties of the position. (Italics mine.) WAC 415-105-060(2). An agency's regulations are entitled to great weight in construing the statute which confers its authority. Holland v. Boeing Co., 90 Wn.2d 384, 389, 583 P.2d 621 (1978); Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 85 Wn.2d 441, 448, 536 P.2d 157 (1975). In an earlier case, we held that a policeman's disability benefit could be canceled on a finding that the claimant could resume some of the positions available in the police department at his former grade. Clark v. Board of Police Pension Fund Comm'rs, 189 Wash. 555, 66 P.2d 307 (1937). Clark was decided under an earlier pension statute, but there the court was also interpreting conditions or circumstances under which disability ceased. Decisions from other jurisdictions on this issue are mixed. [5] While they may be useful in clarifying the different interests at stake, it should be emphasized that they are interpreting statutory language which differs from Washington's. The Clark court did cite a New York case with apparent approval. [T]he court [in People ex rel. Metcalf v. McAdoo, 184 N.Y. 268 (1906)] ... did not require the retirement of a policeman unable to perform full police duty or every conceivable duty, but only such as were unable to discharge with average efficiency the duties of their respective grades. Clark, at 561. The court noted Clark's being reasonably able to perform the ordinary duties of a police officer. Clark, at 562. In conclusion, the standard articulated by the Department is a correct one. A determination that a claimant is now able to perform a reasonable range of duties with average efficiency justifies a return to work. The burden is on the Department to prove this ability. Proof will involve new evidence, but not necessarily changed circumstances. This evidence could include: (1) medical testimony reflecting an absolute improvement in medical condition, or reflecting clarification of the original diagnosis or reflecting adaptation to the disability; or (2) medical testimony indicating present ability to perform without reference to past disability; or (3) actions of the claimant reflecting adaptation; or (4) changes in the Department (either in equipment or job arrangement) which would allow the claimant to perform the duties of his rank or grade. For the above reasons, I would uphold the Department and, therefore, I dissent. UTTER and DORE, JJ., concur with DIMMICK, J.