Court Opinion

ID: 9563823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:47:46.62448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:05.210113
License: Public Domain

LUCAS, J.
I respectfully dissent. As I concluded in my dissent in Bowen v. Board of Retirement, ante, page 572 [229 Cal.Rptr. 814, 724 P.2d 500], I believe the 1980 amendment to Government Code section 31720 changes the test for service-connected disability retirement benefits, rather than merely clarifying existing law, as the majority concludes. As a result of the majority’s holding in Bowen, the issue of retroactive application of the 1980 amendment need not be resolved since a mere clarification of prior law is *594an exception to the general rule that statutes are not ordinarily construed to apply retroactively. (Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, 828, fn. 8 [114 Cal.Rptr. 589, 523 P.2d 629].)
As I indicate in Bowen, the majority has chosen to ignore the clear language of the 1980 amendment and corresponding legislative history, and instead has applied an inappropriate standard for industrial causation, thus avoiding the necessity of construing potential constitutional limitations on the retroactive application of the amendment’s new standard. I believe we must recognize the intended change in the 1980 amendment and squarely address the issue of retroactivity in light of that interpretation.
Respondent’s petition for arehearing was denied October 30,1986. Lucas, J., and Panelli, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.