[Bubbablue]

Hello, a question for you all. Out here in California and I have a friend who is law enforcement. He was injured at work and went through the whole workmans comp thing. He was placed on P&S with permanent work restrictions (less than 50lbs I think). He was told to go through retirement (CALPERS) because he could no longer be a cop. The city then denied his retirement. He is refusing to fight the case (over $30k I think he said to fight it) and is back to work. He said he cannot do the job but they make him work against the restrictions from the Workmans Comp doctor. Is this legal for the city to do this? He told me he has gone back to doctors and issued more stringent restrictions because of the injury being aggravated but he said they told him to go back to work. (Patrol full duty).

[1171]

Only if they are using illegal means to force compliance otherwise it’s his choice to. Agree the terms.
Someone in law enforcement and with union representation should know the value of obtaining legal. Advice and representation.
Retirement regulations are different then work comp; they are allowed to arrive at different conclusions.

[Bubbablue]

(07-15-2018, 11:42 PM)1171 Wrote: Only if they are using illegal means to force compliance otherwise it’s his choice to. Agree the terms.
Someone in law enforcement and with union representation should know the value of obtaining legal. Advice and representation.
Retirement regulations are different then work comp; they are allowed to arrive at different conclusions.

Thanks for the reply. I've told him the lawyer thing too. I'll pass this tidbit on to him.

[1171]

Yup. I suspect there are differing medical opinions supporting each of the outcomes.
The restrictions are his not the employers.
He can file new claims when there are new injuries. I’m surprised he didn’t have an atty for his comp claim; it sounded serious.