Court Opinion

ID: 9739253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:11:15.980638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.105341
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The City Board concluded that Hargis "is not disabled" and is therefore not entitled to a disability pension because (1) no doctor certificate, (2) "no evidence of ... abuse of alcohol on duty," (8) "no evidence of an attendance problem due to alcohol," and (4) "no evidence of health or medical problems usually associated with alcoholism." Such administrative findings facilitate judicial review. Carlton v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Indianapolis (1969), 252 Ind. 56, 245 N.E.2d 337.
The City Board had evidence before it that Hargis had been twice suspended for alcohol-related use of his firearm, and had been twice hospitalized for thirty-day periods and treated for alcoholism. The City does not dispute this. Because, reasons (8) and (4) obviously find no support in the record as a whole, and those reasons comprise at least half of the basis for the decision, I cannot but conclude as did the majority of the Second District, that City Board's decision is clearly erroneous and that it cannot stand.