On October 5 or 6, 2011 Richard Gurrola, a Police Officer II with the City of Los Angeles, suffered a back spasm, which was a flare-up of a prior work-related injury. He scheduled an appointment with Dr. Simon Lavi, who had treated the initial injury, but could not get an appointment earlier than October 11, 2011. Dr. Lavi’s office, which had previously backdated medical notes for Gurrola, assured him he would receive injured on duty (IOD) pay notwithstanding the delay in seeing the doctor.

What followed was numerous communications between Gurrola and the LAPD about his status, and the documentation that was needed from his doctors. Finally Gurrola was served with a personnel complaint and notice of relief from duty and proposed removal, suspension or demotion issued by Chief of Police Charlie Beck, charging him with one count of being absent from work without leave and one count of providing false statements during the investigation into his absence.

There was conflicting testimony from seven witnesses on the board of rights hearing on several points. The board of rights found Gurrola guilty of count 1 and not guilty of count 2 and he was terminated. He appealed his termination and the Court of Appeal affirmed in the unpublished case of Gurrola v City of Los Angeles.

In a mandamus proceeding to review an administrative order, the determination of the penalty by the administrative body will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of its discretion. In considering whether an agency abused its discretion, “the overriding consideration in these cases is the extent to which the employee’s conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely to result in, ‘[harm] to the public service.’ [Citations.] Other relevant factors include the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence.”

Using this standard the Court of Appeal concluded “Although the penalty of termination is harsh, these facts do not present the exceptional case in which reasonable minds cannot differ: The board properly found that public service was compromised by Gurrola’s two-month absence from work without leave, requiring other personnel to cover his shifts. In addition, the evidence supports a finding Gurrola’s actions were consistent with a pattern of improperly taking extended absences from work.”