Alberto Mendoza worked as a Deputy Sheriff for Ventura County. He injured his back at work in late 2014 and mid-2015. In 2015, three different doctors recommended the surgery, and the County authorized it. One doctor predicted Mendoza had a 90% chance of good to excellent results. Mendoza declined the surgery. A doctor reported that Mendoza was “simply scared” to complete the procedure based on “bad information” from his friends and the internet. Mendoza applied for a service-connected disability retirement in 2016. The County advised Mendoza that it was challenging his application.
Doctors continued to examine Mendoza’s back from 2016 to 2019. In 2018, Mendoza reported constant pain, but he was still not interested in surgery. He did not continue a doctor-recommended home exercise program because he said the exercises hurt his back. In 2019, a doctor recommended that Mendoza undergo a work-hardening program to help him increase his ability to lift and potentially return to work.
The administrative hearing on Mendoza’s service-connected disability retirement petition took place in December 2019. Mendoza called no witnesses and testified that he declined the surgery because his incontinence symptoms had decreased, and he felt he was getting better. He testified that he did not see any medical benefit to the work-hardening program because the exercises increased his pain.
In October 2020, the hearing officer issued a recommended decision to deny Mendoza’s application. The hearing officer determined that Mendoza refused to undergo reasonable and appropriate medical treatment that had a high probability of success and would have allowed him to return to work; may have made his condition worse by refusing surgery; unilaterally decided to stop home exercise; and did not participate in the work hardening program the County had authorized. The County’s retirement board adopted the hearing officer’s recommended decision.
Next, Mendoza petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate in the superior court. The superior court denied Mendoza’s petition based on the common law doctrine of avoidable consequences/ mitigation of damages. Under that doctrine, an application for service-connected disability retirement benefits is properly denied if the applicant’s disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by their unreasonable refusal to undergo medical treatment for their injuries. Mendoza appealed.
In the California Court of Appeal, Mendoza argued that the doctrine could not be applied to him because: the initial surgery he refused to undergo would no longer be effective; and the subsequently recommended surgeries would not enable him to perform all of his job duties.
The Court disagreed. It found that the doctrine of avoidable consequences/ mitigation of damages applies not only if it is likely that the employee could still return to work with recommended medical treatment, but also if it is likely the employee could have returned to work but for their unreasonable refusal to timely submit to treatment that may no longer be effective due to the passage of time. A retirement board can find that the employee’s inability to return to work is not a result of their work-related injury, but rather a result of their unreasonable refusal to submit to medical treatment.
The Court of Appeal also noted that the trial court was right to presume that the findings underlying the County board’s decision were correct. Although the trial court focused on Mendoza’s refusal to undergo the approved surgery, the County board also found Mendoza had: unreasonably refused to participate in the work hardening program; unreasonably stopped the home exercise program; and required further medical care and treatment. The Court decided that Mendoza failed to establish that his writ petition was erroneously denied.
Mendoza v. Board of Retirement of the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 865.