DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant; MOISES MOYA, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
No. D061653
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, California
Apr. 26, 2013
215 Cal.App.4th 1101
Michelle L. Hoy and Rudy E. Jansen for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Alicia M. B. Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, and Chris A. Knudsen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McCONNELL, P. J.—
INTRODUCTION
In this case, we consider whether the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (the Act) (
The parties do not dispute the relevant facts of this case. On August 8, 2008, Stephanie Tapia, the return-to-work coordinator at Centinela State Prison (prison), sent the prison‘s warden, Michael A. Smelosky, a memo requesting corrections sergeant Moisés Moya be investigated for workers’ compensation fraud. In the memo, Tapia stated Moya had filed a workers’ compensation claim on May 5, 2008, indicating he injured his right wrist at work when a coworker inadvertently closed it in a door. Two days later, a doctor at an industrial health care center evaluated Moya and diagnosed him with a right wrist contusion. On June 12, 2008, a hand specialist evaluated Moya and diagnosed him with a fractured right wrist. As of a result of the injury, Moya was unable to work. However, someone subsequently informed Tapia that Moya was seen working out at a gym and riding around town on his motorcycle in violation of his work restrictions.
Accompanying the memo was an anonymous letter alleging Moya had actually injured his wrist in an off-duty fight rather than at work. The letter stated Moya attended an off-duty event called “Battle of the Badges.” His ex-girlfriend came to the event with a male friend. Enraged, Moya started a parking lot brawl with the man. Moya injured his hand during the fight, but did not seek medical attention. Instead, he waited for an incident to happen at work so he could file a workers’ compensation claim for his hand injury.
Approximately a month after receiving Tapia‘s memo, Smelosky requested the internal affairs office (IA Office) of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) investigate the allegations. In November 2008 the IA Office started a criminal investigation into whether Moya had committed workers’ compensation fraud. Investigators reviewed hundreds of documents and interviewed numerous witnesses, including the hand specialist who evaluated Moya. The hand specialist told investigators Moya‘s injury was more consistent with a fight than with a work injury.
A little over a year later, in December 2009, the IA Office submitted a report of its investigation to the Imperial County District Attorney‘s Office, which declined to prosecute. Two months later, in February 2010, the IA Office submitted the report to the San Diego County District Attorney‘s Office. The San Diego County District Attorney‘s Office requested additional investigation, which the IA Office completed and provided in June 2010. In July 2010 the San Diego County District Attorney‘s Office also declined to prosecute the matter.
On August 3, 2010, approximately two years after Tapia requested the fraud investigation, the Department served Moya with a notice of adverse action (notice) dismissing him from his position for, among other causes, dishonesty under
Moya appealed his dismissal to the State Personnel Board (Board). He then filed a motion to dismiss the notice, arguing it was barred by the Act‘s one-year statute of limitations contained in
In January 2011 the Board issued an order directing the Department to provide evidence the limitations period should be tolled under
On April 6, 2011, the Board issued a written decision finding the notice was time-barred and dismissed the action. The Board relied on its decision in In re Appeal of Andrew Ruiz (2005) SPB Dec. No. 05-03 (Ruiz) to find that the exception in
DISCUSSION
The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court properly construed
“In construing statutes, ‘our fundamental task is “to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” [Citations.] We begin by examining the statutory language because it generally is the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.] We give the language its usual and ordinary meaning, and “[i]f there is no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.” [Citation.] If, however, the statutory language is ambiguous, “we may resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history.” [Citation.] Ultimately we choose the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the lawmakers, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute.‘” (Mays v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 313, 321 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 891, 180 P.3d 935] (Mays).)
“Initially enacted in 1976 (Stats. 1976, ch. 465, § 1, p. 1202), [the Act] ‘sets forth a list of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers [citation] by the public entities which employ them. It is a catalogue of the minimum rights [citation] the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations [citation].’ [Citations.] The various procedural protections provided by [the Act] ‘balance the public interest in maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the police force with the police officer‘s interest in receiving fair treatment.‘” (Mays, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 320.)
Among the Act‘s procedural protections,
“(A) If the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal prosecution, the time during which the criminal investigation or criminal prosecution is pending shall toll the one-year time period. [¶] ... [¶]
“(H) If the investigation involves an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud on the part of the public safety officer.” (
§ 3304, subd. (d)(2) , italics added.)
The Department contends the latter exception applies in this case because the investigation at issue involved an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud by Moya. Moya contends the exception does not apply because the investigation in this case was not conducted by a third party. We disagree with Moya.
The language of the exception is neither ambiguous nor unclear. It provides that the one-year limitations period does not apply to investigations involving an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud by the subject officer. There is no dispute the investigation in this case involved an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud by Moya. Thus, the requirements for application of the exception have been satisfied.
Contrary to Moya‘s assertion, the statute does not require that the investigation be conducted by a third party for the exception to apply and we have no power to graft such a requirement into the statute. (Breslin, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080; Sulier, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 26; see California Correctional Peace Officers’ Assn. v. State of California (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 646, 656 [115 Cal.Rptr.3d 361] [an appellate court‘s role is to interpret the law, not to second-guess the Legislature‘s choices or insert what the Legislature omitted].)
Moya‘s reliance on the Board‘s decision in Ruiz is misplaced. Ruiz involved the application of the exception in
While we must generally consider and respect the Board‘s interpretation of a statute within its administrative jurisdiction, we are not bound by the Board‘s interpretation nor are we required to accord any deference to a clearly erroneous interpretation of an unambiguous statute. (Bonnell v. Medical Board (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1255, 1264-1265 [8 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 82 P.3d 740]; Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 12 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 960 P.2d 1031].) The Board has no greater power than we do to graft a nonexistent requirement into a statute.
The Board based its decision in Ruiz, and indirectly its decision in this case, on California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 294 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 302] (CCPOA). In the CCPOA case, corrections officers were interrogated as part of a joint criminal investigation being conducted by their employer and the California Department of Justice (DOJ). When their employer did not provide them with certain protections delineated in
The officers countered that these two provisions should be construed narrowly to apply only to investigations conducted by outside agencies substantially independent of the employer otherwise the purpose of the Act would be defeated. (CCPOA, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 308.) The appellate court agreed and held “the criminal investigations referred to in subdivision (i) of
Neither
A more recent appellate court decision has disagreed with the holding and criticized the analysis of the CCPOA decision. (Van Winkle v. County of Ventura (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 492, 497 [69 Cal.Rptr.3d 809] (Van Winkle).) The Van Winkle court explained, “In CCPOA, the court concluded that
“The court in CCPOA misinterpreted
The Van Winkle court went on to point out that to follow the CCPOA court‘s interpretation of
Although we have not discerned any ambiguity in the language of
Nonetheless, we reviewed the legislative history of
The language of the exception has not changed since its introduction in the previously vetoed bill. (Sen. Bill No. 282 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 29, 1996.) None of the committee reports discussing the enacted legislation or its vetoed predecessor substantively analyzes the exception. Instead, the reports simply parrot the exception‘s language. (See, e.g., Assem. Conc. in Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 1436 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 17, 1997, p. 2; Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Unfinished Business Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 282 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 29, 1996, p. 2.)
One contemporaneous executive branch report noted generally that the exceptions to the one-year limitations period were added to the statute to address “concerns by opponents that certain misconduct investigations may require additional time.” (Governor‘s Off. of Planning & Research, Enrolled Bill Rep., Assem. Bill No. 1436 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 17, 1997, p. 4.) At most, this comment reflects a legislative recognition that the aim of having speedy investigations into and resolution of misconduct allegations is not achievable in all instances. The comment offers no guidance on the intended scope of any particular exception. The comment does, however, undermine Moya‘s argument that our failure to adopt his interpretation would lead to an absurd or unintended result as it demonstrates delayed outcomes were anticipated for some investigations.
“‘Current law for state peace officers requires completion and prosecution of state peace officers within three years. Current law for local peace officers has no time limit. This bill requires peace officers’ disciplinary investigations to be completed within one year. The bill excepts certain multi-jurisdictional and other investigations for which management has no reasonable control.
“‘All representative law enforcement groups have carefully negotiated this bill and agree on the need and reasonableness of this bill; in essence, it is unfair to our peace officer[s] not to investigate and bring charges or dismiss the action within a reasonable time. One year is the agree[d]-upon time by both labor and management.‘” (Assem. Conc. in Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 1436 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 17, 1997, pp. 2-3.)
This statement of intent affirms what is already apparent from the plain language of the statute: the Legislature created a generally applicable time limit for investigating and bringing charges against a law enforcement officer, but excepted certain investigations the timing of which it did not believe management could control. As this description could conceivably include both internal and external workers’ compensation fraud investigations, we cannot glean from this statement a clear legislative intent to limit the exception for workers’ compensation fraud investigations solely to third party investigations. To the contrary, the author‘s statement that the bill was carefully negotiated and agreed upon by all stakeholders persuades us all the more that the Legislature meant exactly what it said—that the one-year limitations period in
The judgment is affirmed. The Department is awarded its costs on appeal.
McIntyre, J., and Irion, J., concurred.