# Hoffman v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Ass'n

> California Supreme Court · September 25, 1986 · 42 Cal. 3d 590

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9563823

## Case

- **Full name:** ANGELITA HOFFMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 25, 1986
- **Citations:** 42 Cal. 3d 590; 229 Cal. Rptr. 825; 724 P.2d 511; 51 Cal. Comp. Cases 639; 1986 Cal. LEXIS 264
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lucas
- **Judges:** Reynoso, Panelli, Lucas
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9563823

## Opinion text

LUCAS, J.
I respectfully dissent. As I concluded in my dissent in Bowen v. Board of Retirement, ante, page 572 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 814 , 724 P.2d 500 ], I believe the 1980 amendment to Government Code section 31720 changes the test for service-connected disability retirement benefits, rather than merely clarifying existing law, as the majority concludes. As a result of the majority’s holding in Bowen , the issue of retroactive application of the 1980 amendment need not be resolved since a mere clarification of prior law is *594 an exception to the general rule that statutes are not ordinarily construed to apply retroactively. (Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, 828, fn. 8 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 589 , 523 P.2d 629 ].)
As I indicate in Bowen , the majority has chosen to ignore the clear language of the 1980 amendment and corresponding legislative history, and instead has applied an inappropriate standard for industrial causation, thus avoiding the necessity of construing potential constitutional limitations on the retroactive application of the amendment’s new standard. I believe we must recognize the intended change in the 1980 amendment and squarely address the issue of retroactivity in light of that interpretation.
Respondent’s petition for arehearing was denied October 30,1986. Lucas, J., and Panelli, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9563823. Public record. Not legal advice.