relying on distinction between irrevocable right to potential disability benefits and possibility that benefits would not be received because employee may not become disabled to conclude that *639 disability benefits vested upon acceptance of employment
How later courts described this case
- relying on distinction between irrevocable right to potential disability benefits and possibility that benefits would not be received because employee may not become disabled to conclude that *639 disability benefits vested upon acceptance of employment
- holding that a right does not vest “but upon the happening of the contingency upon which” the right is conditioned
- “[T]he wife of a public employee does not have a separate vested right to a pension. Her right does not vest upon her husband’s acceptance of employment but upon the happening of the contingency upon which her benefits are payable, such as his death.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLARK, J
I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Harlow v. Carleson (1976) ante, pages 731, 739 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 298 , 548 P.2d 698 ],
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied May 26, 1976.