Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles
File 7/13/06 Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| RORY CUIELLETTE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. | B184899 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 311647) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Paul Gutman, Judge. Reversed.
Irving Meyer; Pine & Pine, Norman Pine, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Michael Classens, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Jorge M. Otano, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.
________
Plaintiff and appellant Rory Cuiellete (plaintiff) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles (defendant) in plaintiff's action for disability discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. We reverse the judgment on the basis that there are disputed issues of fact with respect to plaintiff's cause of action for disability discrimination. We note that plaintiff did not seek summary adjudication as to each cause of action and therefore make no ruling as to the wrongful termination cause of action.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was employed in the felony fugitive warrant section of the City of Los Angeles Police Department when he took a leave of absence in 1998. In October 1999, plaintiff filed claims for workers' compensation benefits and an application for adjudication of those claims, in which he sought permanent and temporary disability indemnity for various injuries, including cardiovascular and hypertension, diabetes and kidney injuries, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and right knee trauma. Defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's claims denying the degree and extent of plaintiff's injuries and disability. By letter dated February 12, 2002, Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (Cambridge), the third party administrator of defendant's workers' compensation claims, informed plaintiff of his potential eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services.
Plaintiff's claims were adjudicated, and on April 8, 2003, a workers' compensation administrative law judge found that plaintiff's injuries arose out of the course of his employment by defendant and that those injuries â€
