Bradley v. City of Los Angeles

131 P.2d 391, 55 Cal. App. 2d 592, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 102
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 19, 1942
DocketCiv. 13735
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 131 P.2d 391 (Bradley v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradley v. City of Los Angeles, 131 P.2d 391, 55 Cal. App. 2d 592, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

YORK, P. J.

This appeal is prosecuted by the city of Los Angeles and its Department of Pensions and Board of Pension Commissioners from a judgment of the trial court ordering a peremptory writ of mandate to issue, directing the board to pay a pension to petitioner, Mabel J. Bradley.

Prior to instituting the instant proceeding in mandamus, Mrs. Bradley filed with the Board of Pension Commissioners her application for a widow’s pension pursuant to the provisions of article XVII of the charter of the city of Los Angeles, which application was denied by said board.

The petition for the writ contained the following allegations of fact: Petitioner is the widow of Walter N. Bradley who died on December 30, 1939. Said decedent became a member of the police department of the city of Los Angeles on the 18th of February, 1927, and from that date until the day of his death he paid into the pension fund of said city 4% of the salary received by him as such officer. On the 13th of June, 1933, while engaged in the discharge of his duties as a police officer, decedent was bitten by a dog afflicted with rabies and received through the department of health of said city fourteen Pasteur treatments for said dog bite, suffering a severe reaction from said treatments. As a result of said treatments, decedent’s general health became poor and his nervous system suffered; his condition became progressively worse subsequent to June 23, 1933, and on July 26, 1938, he was declared to be ill on duty and was so carried on the rolls of said police department until the 26th day of July, 1939; on August 7, 1939, decedent filed application for a pension, which application was pending at the time of his death on December 30, 1939, when “by reason of the injuries so received in line of duty, (he) had become so *594 ill in body and Ms nervous system so injured that he became mentally unbalanced, and as the result thereof, on said 30th of December, 1939, took his own life.”

Appellants answered the petition and by way of defense alleged that the cause of the death of said Walter N. Bradley was “cirrhosis of the liver, causing an ascites making necessary frequent paracentesis abdominis,” arid that this condition was in nowise attributable to any injury or sickness incurred by said Walter N. Bradley in the discharge of his duties as a police officer.

It was found by the court upon this issue:

“VI. That on the 13th day of June, 1933, while the said Walter N. Bradley was in the service of the City of Los Angeles and engaged in the discharge of his duties as a member of the Police Department of said City, he was bitten by a dog afflicted with rabies; that thereafter between June 14 and June 23, 1933, inclusive, the Department of Health of respondent City of Los Angeles gave to the said Walter N. Bradley fourteen Pasteur treatments; that the said Walter N. Bradley suffered a severe reaction from said treatments and as the result thereof his general health became poor and his nervous system suffered; that said conditions became progressively worse subsequent to June 23, 1933, and as a result of said conditions on or about the 26th day of July, 1938, he was declared by said respondent City of Los Angeles to be ill on duty and was so carried upon the rolls of said police department of said City of Los Angeles until the 26th day of July, 1939; that from July 26th, 1939, to the date of his death the said Walter N. Bradley was a member of said police department but on account of his illness was unable to perform any duties and received no pay from the 'said respondent City of Los Angeles; that on the 7th day of August, 1939, the said Walter N. Bradley filed an application for a pension with the said respondent Board of Pension Commissioners, which application was still pending before said Board at the time of the death of the said Walter N. Bradley; that by the 31st day of December, 1939, the said Walter N. Bradley, by reason of the injuries so received in line of duty, on aggravation and acceleration of a pre-existing disease, had become so ill in body and his nervous system so injured that he became mentally unbalanced and as the result thereof, on said 31st day of December, 1939, took his own life; that Walter N. Bradley died as a result of the in *595 juries received through the dog bite coupled with the Pasteur treatments.” (Emphasis added.)

Appellants urge in their opening brief that “There is no competent evidence in this case to sustain the finding that the cirrhosis of the liver from which officer Bradley died was caused by the Pasteur treatments,” and therefore, “The decision of the trial court in this case is contrary to unanimous medical opinion.”

Respondents in their reply brief contend that Officer Bradley’s health was shown to have deteriorated steadily from the time in 1933 when he was bitten by the dog afflicted with rabies and was given the Pasteur treatments. “Whether or not he also had cirrhosis of the liver, his death was caused by his insane act of jumping from the window at the Veterans’ Hospital, or falling from it, and the evidence shows that that act was directly attributable to the reaction from the Pasteur treatments. It seems clear therefore that the finding of the court that the officer died as a result of the injuries received through the dog bite, coupled with the Pasteur treatments, is sufficiently supported. ...”

The judge, who presided at the trial of the instant litigation, prepared a memorandum for decision in which he summarized both the oral and documentary evidence with clarity and fairness, and cited the law applicable thereto in support of his findings and judgment in favor of the petitioner. Following we quote said memorandum:

“Petitioner, widow of Walter N. Bradley, a late member of the Police Department of the City of Los Angeles, seeks a writ of mandate commanding respondents to grant her a pension as such widow under provisions of the City Charter.
“Section 183 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles provides as follows in part: ‘Whenever any member of the . . . Police Department, shall die as a result of any injury received during the performance of his duty, or from sickness caused by the discharge of such duty . . . then an annual pension shall be paid in equal monthly installments to his widow ... in an amount equal to one-half (%) of the average monthly rate of salary which such deceased member shall have received in such Department during the three years immediately preceding the time of his death. ’
“Petitioner and Walter N. Bradley were married on November 20, 1920, and on February 18, 1927, the latter became a member of the Police Department of the City of Los *596 Angeles, and remained such until Ms death on December 31, 1939. The average monthly rate of salary attached to the rank or position held by him and received by him in such department was $200.00 per month for three years prior to July 25, 1939, after which date he was absent from duty on leave granted on account of illness and inability to perform services, and received no pay from said City. At .the time of his death there was pending his application for a pension and hearing had been set thereon for January 8, 1940.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gurule v. Board of Pension Commissioners
126 Cal. App. 3d 523 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Carroll v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review
292 A.2d 161 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1972)
López Maldonado v. Muñoz Marín
81 P.R. 328 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1959)
Branson v. Firemen's Retirement Fund of Idaho
312 P.2d 1037 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1957)
Gilman v. City of Long Beach
245 P.2d 512 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Platt v. City of Los Angeles
165 P.2d 714 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 P.2d 391, 55 Cal. App. 2d 592, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-city-of-los-angeles-calctapp-1942.