A former San Francisco police officer is at the center of a legal battle involving the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System over the denial of his Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) application. The case, filed by Justin W. Webster in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four on September 11, 2024, challenges the retirement system's decision and seeks reconsideration based on new medical evidence.
Justin W. Webster, who served as a police officer in San Francisco, sustained injuries during his employment that led him to apply for IDR benefits. Initially, an administrative law judge denied Webster’s application after finding the retirement system’s medical expert more credible than Webster’s own expert. The judge criticized Webster's medical expert for not relying on "objective evidence." Following this decision, Webster filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate and attempted to return to work but was deemed "not fit for duty" by a medical examiner. Another doctor in a related workers' compensation case also found him incapable of performing his job duties. Despite these findings, the retirement system refused to process his second IDR application.
The superior court partially granted Webster's petition for writ of mandate, overturning the denial of his IDR application and remanding the case back to the agency for reconsideration with two new medical reports as evidence. The court dismissed arguments from the retirement system that Webster had failed to exhaust all administrative remedies and that admitting new medical reports was improper.
In their appeal, the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System contended that Webster's writ should have been dismissed due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and argued against admitting new medical reports into evidence. However, referencing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(e), which allows courts to consider relevant new evidence that could not have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence or was improperly excluded initially, the appellate court affirmed the superior court's decision.
Webster's legal team argued that requesting a rehearing based on previously decided facts and law would have been futile and unnecessary under established legal precedents like Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com., which state that redundant rehearings are not required for exhausting administrative remedies.
Ultimately, Webster seeks judgment from the court affirming his eligibility for IDR benefits based on updated medical evaluations demonstrating his incapacity to perform police duties due to injuries sustained on duty.
Representing Justin W. Webster is attorney Douglas J., while P.J. Brown and J. Streeter serve as judges overseeing this case under Case ID A168995.