Alberto Mendoza began working as a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff in 2012, assigned to the Todd Road Jail Facility. In December 2014, he suffered a back injury after slipping on stairs, causing lower back discomfort. In May 2015, he sustained another back injury when an inmate kicked him in the right waist area during a subdue attempt. An MRI in May 2015 revealed degenerative disc disease at the L5-S1 level, a disc herniation abutting the right S1 nerve root, and extrusion of nucleus pulposus material also affecting the nerve root.
Mendoza was evaluated by several doctors. Dr. Robert Fields, the Qualified Medical Evaluator in his workers’ compensation case, recommended referral to a spine specialist and noted a high likelihood of needing surgery. Dr. Brian Grossman, an orthopedic surgeon, initially suggested physical therapy and an epidural injection but later concluded Mendoza had reached maximal medical improvement without surgery, though he discussed microscopic discectomy as an option; Mendoza declined, citing colleagues’ negative experiences. Dr. Sam Bakshian, his treating physician, reported worsening symptoms post-injection and requested authorization for a hemilaminectomy microdiscectomy at L5-S1, which the County authorized, but Mendoza refused due to fears and concerns about outcomes.
Subsequent MRIs in December 2015 and June 2017 showed progression of discopathy. Dr. Fields reevaluated Mendoza in 2016, urging surgery with a 90% chance of good to excellent results, allowing potential return to work. Mendoza continued to decline. By 2017, Dr. Bakshian recommended a more extensive laminoforaminotomy discectomy due to scar formation and annular tearing, but this was denied via utilization review for lack of objective evidence. Dr. Richard Rosenberg evaluated Mendoza in 2018 and 2019, opining he no longer needed surgery, had lost less than 5% lifting capacity, and could return to most deputy duties with accommodations, recommending a home exercise program and work hardening; Mendoza stopped the exercises due to pain and declined work hardening.
Mendoza testified at an administrative hearing that he refused surgery because his urinary incontinence resolved and he believed his body was improving, though he reported constant pain. The County presented evidence from radiologist Dr. Stephen Rothman that the 2017 MRI showed no nerve compression, and testimony that accommodations were possible. A supplemental report from Dr. Bakshian in 2020 agreed the disc extrusion resolved but noted significant disc height loss and dysfunction, now requiring decompression, neurolysis, and possibly fusion.
In May 2016, Mendoza applied for service-connected disability retirement benefits with the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association (VCERA). The County challenged the application, leading to an administrative hearing before a VCERA hearing officer in December 2019. The hearing officer issued proposed findings in October 2020, recommending denial because Mendoza unreasonably refused surgery with a high success probability (90% per Dr. Fields), stopped his home exercise program, and declined work hardening, potentially worsening his condition. The Board adopted this decision, denying benefits.
Mendoza then petitioned the Ventura County Superior Court for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, challenging the Board’s denial as an abuse of discretion and unsupported by evidence.
The trial court denied Mendoza’s writ petition, exercising independent judgment and upholding the Board’s findings. The court held Mendoza’s delay worsened his condition, making his disability self-inflicted rather than service-connected. Substantial evidence, including uncontradicted medical opinions, supported this, and Mendoza failed to meet his burden.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial, in the published opinion of Mendoza v. Bd. of Retirement of the Ventura County Employee’s Retirement Association -B327347 (December 2025). It reasoned that allowing benefits despite unreasonable refusal would undermine the doctrine’s purpose: preventing employees from relying on unfounded fears to reject treatment and claim disability.
The appellate court reviewed for substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings, given Mendoza’s vested right to benefits required independent judgment. It presumed the administrative findings correct, with Mendoza bearing the burden to show otherwise. The court applied the doctrine of avoidable consequences, which denies benefits if disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by unreasonable refusal of treatment with inconsiderable risk relative to injury severity.
The court found substantial evidence for the unreasonable refusal: recommendations from three doctors (Bakshian, Fields, Grossman), Dr. Fields’ 90% success opinion outweighing risks, and Mendoza’s fears based on anecdotal information. It noted conflicts in Dr. Bakshian’s testimony but deemed them insufficient to compel reversal. The court also upheld findings on refusal of work hardening and home exercises, and forfeiture of Mendoza’s sufficiency claim for omitting favorable evidence in his brief. It reasoned that allowing benefits despite unreasonable refusal would undermine the doctrine’s purpose: preventing employees from relying on unfounded fears to reject treatment and claim disability.