Opinion ID: 1204342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellant's Final Argument

Text: Appellant's final argument is that this decision will create an unfair result inconsistent with the intent of the legislature as expressed in § 15-5-308. Appellant contends that the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from this case is that a policeman who can perform 90 to 95 per cent of the duties of a patrolman, and who could have been assigned duties which would have enabled him to continue working, is nevertheless entitled to a full disability pension under § 15-5-308. To the contrary, the conclusion which should be drawn from this case is that a police department cannot first inform an injured police officer that no light duty is available at the time the officer requests it, and thereby require him to use up his sick leave; later inform the officer that his options are either to apply for worker's compensation or a disability pension; and ultimately obtain the Board's denial of the disability pension, in part because he could have requested light duty but did not do so at a time when light duty was available. See Cloud v. Fort Dodge Police Pension Board, supra. We do no harm to this court's earlier decision in Hoy v. Firemen's Pension Fund, Wyo., 540 P.2d 531 (1975), wherein a fireman's request for a pension was denied because light duty was available to him and he was capable of performing it. In that case, the petitioner was in fact offered a light-duty job, and [t]he pension denial was predicated on Hoy's refusal to accept this position of permanent floor-watch duty. 540 P.2d at 532. The order of the district court is affirmed.