Court Opinion

ID: 9729826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:49:37.996623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:01.412585
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.
I dissent.
The majority concludes from the record in this case that appellant’s employment contributed substantially to his disability and that therefore the trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition for a writ of mandate. I believe the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
After a hearing on appellant’s application for service-connected disability retirement benefits, the respondent board of retirement made findings of fact and denied the application. In reviewing the evidence in the record of this proceeding and deciding not to grant appellant’s petition for writ of mandate, the trial court exercised its independent judgment. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28 [112 Cal.Rptr. 805, 520 P.2d 29].) Our function is simply to determine if substantial evidence supports the *1047trial court’s findings. It is patently clear that substantial evidence does in fact support the trial court’s decision. My colleagues, however, insist on retrying the case de novo.
Evidence supporting the denial of service-related disability retirement benefits is found first in the report of Dr. Smiley, appellant’s treating physician from late 1975 until after appellant’s retirement. This report, dated March 15, 1979, establishes that appellant suffered from obesity, hypertension, severe arthritis and knee problems before he began work for the county; that following treatment immediately after the first employment-related accident, appellant was not seen by Dr. Smiley at all for more than two years; that appellant complained of pain in both knees in November 1975, November 1978, and March 1979; and that appellant’s continuing obesity was a complicating factor. Dr. Smiley’s opinion, as expressed at the end of his report, was that appellant’s obesity and his preexisting conditions contributed 90 percent of his disability.
In March 1979, when Dr. Smiley wrote his report, appellant’s hip condition had not yet been discovered, although a note written by appellant’s wife to Dr. Smiley on March 6, 1978, describing appellant’s symptoms, states that appellant had pain in his ankles and hips at that time. In addition, Dr. Smiley noted, after examining appellant on November 6, 1978, the slightly limited range of motion of appellant’s hips, knees and ankles.
X-rays taken in January 1980 in connection with appellant’s retirement application revealed degenerative arthritis in appellant’s left hip. Dr. Trauner, who examined appellant in 1980, but who had not treated him previously, thought that the degenerative changes in appellant’s left hip, which he believed had been present for a long time, were probably related to a condition originating during appellant’s childhood. Dr. Trauner agreed with Dr. Smiley’s assessment that 90 percent of appellant’s knee disability was related to the natural progression of appellant’s underlying arthritic condition. Unlike Dr. Smiley, however, Dr. Trauner was aware of the extent of appellant’s hip problems. Although Dr. Trauner thought appellant’s overall disability was due to severe degenerative arthritis in both knees and left hip, he thought the hip disability alone would limit appellant to sedentary activities.
Dr. Trauner’s report provides substantial evidence for the following findings of fact made by the trial court: “5. Lundak has severe degenerative arthritis in both knees and in the left hip. These problems have resulted in Lundak’s present disability.
“6. Lundak would be limited to sedentary activities because of his hip disability alone which is not in any way related to the two industrial injuries to his left knee.
*1048“7. Substantially all of Lundak’s knee disability would have been present in the absence of any work related injuries as a result of the natural progression of the underlying arthritic condition in both of his knees. This underlying arthritic condition was not related to nor caused by Lundak’s employment.
“8. Lundak’s obesity is a major factor in his present disability and is not job-related.
“9. The evidence establishes that, even if the two work-related injuries described above had not occurred, substantially all of Lundak’s present disability would have been present because of his obesity and the arthritic condition in his hip, both of which are nonindustrial, and because of the natural progression of the underlying arthritic condition in both knees, substantially all of which would have been present even without the two injuries.”
There is no conflict between findings 5 and 6, as appellant urges. It is completely possible for a person to have several problems, more than one of which may be disabling. Although appellant’s knee problems may be incapacitating, Dr. Trauner’s report supports the conclusion that the hip condition alone would prevent appellant from carrying out his duties as a mail clerk driver. The hip disability completely overshadows the disabling effect of appellant’s knee condition.
Government Code section 31720, as amended, governs the disposition of this case. It requires that an applicant’s employment contribute substantially to his or her disability in order for an award of service-connected disability to be made. I think the record in this case supports the conclusion that appellant’s work activities and two service-related accidents did not contribute substantially to his disability.
“[Cjourts are bound to give effect to statutes according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them.” (Rich v. State Board of Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 604 [45 Cal.Rptr. 512]; Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230 [110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224].) The synonyms given for “substantial” in the principal entry in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary are: “material; real, true; important, essential.”
Because appellant’s hip condition alone would completely disable him and because this problem is not related in any way to his employment, his employ*1049ment cannot be viewed as having made a material, real, true, important or essential contribution to his disability. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 11, 1983. Richardson, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.