ATTACHMENT A

RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ATTACHMENT A

Danette Mulvaney

p- ■

April 23,2018 APR 2 7 2018

».k H • i/ . ^ 1•

Cheree Swedensky, Assistant to the Board

CalPERS Executive Office

PC BOX 942701

Sacramento, OA. 94229-2701

(916) 795-3972

RE: PETITITON FOR RECONSIDERATION REF#2017-0278

Vvlrrf'

Dear Cheree Swedensky,

I received a letter from CalPERS dated March 26, 2018 regarding my application for Industrial

Disability Retirement and the boards final decision to deny my application. I am writing to ask

the Board to reconsider and postpone the decision as I would like to file a Petition for Writ of

Mandate.

As previously stated, there are issues regarding my status that were on my application that have

not been considered. On my application, I indicated my hypertension is a work-related issue.

There was a report submitted from my QME from a Dr. Mawbry-Height in 2015-2016. CalPERS

has used her report indicating my hypertension is not work-related, when Dr. Mawbry-Height

was deposed this year by my attorney, Myles lida, Esq, where she admitted she did not

complete the examination as directed. She was supposed to conduct a cumulative examination

rather than the isolated incident that transpired on August 11, 2014 at the Barstow CHP office

and dispatch center. I have attached a copy of SCIFs notification for me to see a Dr. Hyman in

San Bernardino this in March and also a follow-up with more testing on April 12, 2018.

Therefore, a complete report is still outstanding and will be received in less than 30 days. So,

the determination of my hypertension has not been determined. CalPERS denied sending me

to a doctor for the IME because they accepted Dr. Mawbry-Height's report as a final finding.

As previously stated, I believe Dr. Lawrence H. Warick, MD, PH.D, is not consistent in his

reporting to CalPERS versus the testimony he presented in the administrative hearing in front of

Judge Wong. For me, this is unethical and a misrepresentation of information to both parties.

At several points during the hearing, Judge Wong had to admonish Dr. Warick to answer my

questions and Judge Wong was close to throwing out Dr. Warick, his testimony, and reports due

to his conduct. Judge Wong also stated during the hearing to Dr. Warick, the more he speaks

the less credible he becomes. This alone supports my allegation Dr. Warick was less than

cooperative. I don't know if he was feigning ignorance or if he is too old to understand

questions presented to him that were not previously rehearsed with Mr. Glaubermann.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Board to designate their decision as precedent in my case based

upon issues that were not considered in my case. CalPERS, provides a list of duties for a

Public Safety Dispatcher. This list merely contains the physical requirements of the position.

Neither CHP nor CalPERS acknowledge the mental and emotion capacity required to perform

the job. This position Is not just answering phones or typing or using a computer. This position

requires a person to be able to make life and death decisions in a split second. If you have

been subjected to mental terrorism, suffer emotional distress, and try to perform your duties in a

hostile work environment created by the immediate supervisors, who are husband and wife. If

you are responsible for helping the public of the State of California when they are experiencing

a traumatic event in their life, how can you when you are constantly under attack by those who

are supposed to support you? If I am evaluated by a psychiatrist and he is provided a list of my

duties which is only physical duties; how can he say I can perform my duties as required when

none of the mental or emotional requirements are listed? I would ask the Board to heavily

reconsider the proposed decision and incorporate ALL the duties required of a person

performing the duties as a Public Safety Dispatcher. A person's mental ability or limitations

does heavily affect their ability to help others in their time of need.

incerely.

1 Wette 0. Yriarte^ulvaneyJbaiuw'

Page 2

California Public Employees' Retirement SystemLegal OfficeJ^Wh 942707Sacramento, OA 94229-2707

IP" TTY: (877) 249-7442CalPERS 795-3675 phone • (916) 795-3659 fax

www.calpers.ca.gov

Ref. No. 2017-0278

March 26, 2018

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Danette C. Mulvaney

Subject: In the Matter of the Application for Industrial Disability Retirement ofDANETTE C. MULVANEY. Respondent, and CALIFORNIAHIGHWAY PATROL, Respondent.

Dear Ms. Mulvaney:

We enclose a copy of the Board of Administration's Decision in the abovematter. Please be advised that this Decision was made pursuant to the AdministrativeProcedure Act (Gov. Code, § 11370, et seq.) and California Code of Regulations, Title2, sections 555-555.4, on March 21, 2018.

Any party who participated in this case and is dissatisfied with this Decision has a rightto petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of the date of mailing of theDecision (the date of mailing is indicated on the attached Proof of Service), and the rightof appeal to the courts within 30 days after the last day on which reconsideration can beordered. (See Gov. Code, §§ 11521 and 11523.) It is not necessary that a Petition forReconsideration be filed in order to appeal to the courts. (Gov. Code, § 11523.) If youchoose to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate, please submit a written request toour office for preparation of the administrative record.

The Chief Executive Officer may grant a stay of the effective date of the Decision, not toexceed 30 days, so that a Petition for Reconsideration may be filed. If additional time isneeded by the Board to evaluate a petition prior to the expiration of the stay, the ChiefExecutive Officer may grant an additional stay for no more than 10 days, solely for thepurpose of considering the petition. If no action is taken on a petition within the timeallowed for ordering reconsideration, the petition shall be deemed denied. (Gov. Code,§11521.)

All Petitions for Reconsideration MUST BE received by the CalPERS Executive Officewithin 25 days from the date the Decision was mailed in order for the Chief ExecutiveOfficer to grant a stay of execution.

Danette C. MulvaneyMarch 26. 2018Page 2

Please title your submission "Petition for Reconsideration" and ensure that all personalinformation has been redacted, as this will become a public document when included inthe agenda item. Please send this to:

Cheree Swedensky, Assistant to the BoardExecutive Office

California Public Employees' Retirement SystemP. O. Box 942701

Sacramento, OA 94229-2701Fax: (916)795-3972

In addition, it is recommended that you send, via facsimile, a copy of any Petition forReconsideration to the attention of Matthew G. Jacobs, General Counsel, at (916) 795-3659.

If you do not file a Petition for Reconsideration or if your Petition for Reconsideration isdenied, the next step in the appeal process is to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate inSuperior Court.

Sincerely,

MATTHEW GMATTHEW G. JACOBS

General Counsel

MGJ:sms

Enclosure - Decision

cc: Tim Castle, California Highway Patrol

Danette Mulvaney

March 3,2018

Cheree Swedensky, Assistant to the Board

CalPERS Executive Office

PC BOX 942701

Sacramento, CA. 94229-2701

RE: RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT REF#2017-0278

Dear Cheree Swedensky,

I received a letter from CalPERS dated January 19, 2018 regarding my application for Industrial

Disability Retirement and proposed decision. I am writing to ask the Board to reconsider the

proposed decision based upon new information received in February 2018 from Dr. Le of

Arrowhead Orthopedics indicating I am permanent and stationary.

Secondly, the files indicate the reports from Dr. Mawbry-Height regarding my hypertension.

This doctor was disqualified by SCIF in her diagnosis because her report was incomplete; she

based her report on the incident of August 11, 2014 rather than what she was supposed to

report upon - cumulative report not just this one incident. I have been rescheduled to see Dr.

Mark Hymen, M.D. on March 20, 2018. I have also been scheduled to see Dr. Donald Kim,

M.D. to evaluate my permanent and stationary status.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Board to designate their decision as precedent in my case based

upon issues that were not considered in my case. CalPERS, provides a list of duties for a

Public Safety Dispatcher. This list merely contains the physical requirements of the position.

Neither CMP nor CalPERS acknowledge the mental and emotion capacity required to perform

the Job. This position is not just answering phones or typing or using a computer. This position

requires a person to be able to make life and death decisions in a split second. If you have

been subjected to mental terrorism, suffer emotional distress, and try to perform your duties in a

hostile work environment created by the immediate supervisors, who are husband and wife. If

you are responsible for helping the public of the State of Califomia when they are experiencing

a traumatic event in their life, how can you when you are constantly under attack by those who

are supposed to support you? If I am evaluated by a psychiatrist and he is provided a list of my

duties which is only physical duties; how can he say I can perform my duties as required when

none of the mental or emotional requirements are listed? I would ask the Board to heavily

reconsider the proposed decision and incorporate ALL the duties required of a person

performing the duties as a Public Safety Dispatcher. A person's mental ability or limitations

does heavily affect their ability to help others in their time of need.

Sincerely,

Danette C. Yriarte-Mulvaney

Page 2

Califomia Public Employees' Retirement SystemLegal Office

jmWA 942707JSMufflA Sacramento. CA 94229-2707TTY: (877) 249-7442

CalPERS 795-3675 phone • (916) 795-3659 faxwww.calper8.ca.gov

RefNo. 2017-0278

January 19,2018

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Danette C. Mulvaney

SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Application for Industrial Disability Retirement ofDANETTE C. MULVANEY, Respondent, and CALIFORNIAHIGHWAY PATROL, Respondent.

Dear Ms. Mulvaney:

This is to fon/vard a photocopy of the Proposed Decision of the Administrative LawJudge in the above-named matter. In accordance with the Administrative ProcedureAct, it has no force or effect until the Board of Administration (Board) of the CaliforniaPublic Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) takes formaf action to either adopt It,remand It, or decline to adopt It In favor of Its own decision.

Your appeal has been calendared for consideration by the Board at its regular meetingon March 21,2018. Although oral argument is not allowed, the parties may submitwritten argument for or against the Proposed Decision.

As part of this argument, you may also ask the Board to designate the decision asprecedent, in whole or in part, if it is adopted. The purpose of designating precedent Isto provide guidance to the Board and other parties In fiiture appeals, where the disputedlaw and issues are the same. This designation has no effect on the binding outcome ofyour appeal. CalPERS staff routinely submits written argument, and may make thissame request of the Board. Or, the Board may choose to designate a given decision asprecedent, on its own motion. For this reason, although you are not required to take aposition, if you have a preference against precedential status you should explain why inyour written argument to the Board.

In deciding whether to designate precedent, the Board will always consider Does thedecision contain a significant legai or poiicy determination of general application that islikely to recur? Does it include a dear and complete analysis of the issues in sufficientdetail so that interested parties can understand why the findings of fact were made, andhow the law was applied?

Danette C. MulvaneyJanuary 19.2018Page 2 of 2

All precedential decisions will be published with a cumulative index, and madeavailable free of charge on the CalPERS website (http://www.calpers.ca.gov). They willalso be available in "hard copy" upon written request to this office. Any precedentialdecision may be de-published at the request of an interested party, after an opportunityfor public comment and at the sole discretion of the Board.

Your written argument should be no longer than six pages, and must be receivedby CalPERS no later than March 7, 2018. Please note, even if you miss this deadlinethe Board will still act on the Proposed Decision. All written argument will be included inthe agenda item, and mailed simultaneously to the Board and all parties. Yourargument will not be disclosed to the attorney assigned to this matter until then. Pleaseredact personal information, as Respondent Arguments become a public documentwhen included in the agenda item. As mentioned earlier, parties will not be allowedto orally respond to the Board on the merits of written argument. Please title yoursubmission as "Respondent's Argument" and send it to:

Cheree Swedensky, Assistant to the BoardCalPERS Executive Office

P.O. Box 942701

Sacramento, OA 94229-2701Fax: (916) 795-3972

If you have any questions about this procedure, you may contact Charles H.Glauberman, Senior Attorney, at (916) 795-2992.

Sincerely,

SABRINA SAVALA

Legal Office

SMS

Enclosure

cc: Tim Castle, California Highway Patrol

DANETTE C. YRIARTE MULVANEY

2/17/2017

Office of Administrative HearingsAttn.: Administrative Lav^' Judge Coren D. Wong2349 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 200Sacramento, CA. 95833-4231

Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING RESPONSE - In the matter of the Application for IndustrialDisability Retirement of DANETTE C. MULVANEY (Yriarte), Respondent, andCalifornia Highway Patrol Respondent. OAH No. 2017060793

Dear Judge Wong:

I hove received Mr. Glauberman's, CalPERS Senior Attorney, letter along with the supplemental

reports from Dr. Lawrence H. Warick, M,D. and Dr. Robert J. Kolesnik, M.D. dated in November 2017.

Although 1 submitted several reports from the treating doctors I hove been seen by and continue

to see, I disagree with CalPERS determinations, specifically, the reports submitted by and testimony

provided by Dr. Lawrence H. Warick, M.D. It is at this time, I would like to request reports and

testimony of the expert witness. Dr. Warick, M.D. be rejected and non-admissible based upon

inaccurate and conflicting information, misleading testimony, various pertinent issues were not

addressed by Dr. Warick and lastly, unethical and unprofessional behaviors.

Dr. Warick reported I was not depressed because my facial mimic muscles were in such a way that

they did not indicate depression. He added he could tell a person is depressed by the way these

muscles hove movement or their lack of movement as an individual cannot fake the movements.

When asked if mimic muscles were a criterion set forth in the DSM V to make o clinical diagnosis of

depression. Dr. Warick stated no. To imply to the court a diagnosis of depression can be made by a

cursory observation is reckless, misleading and unprofessional.

Additionally, in his court testimony Dr. Warick stated I was not depressed nor did I show anxiety,

which is in direct contradiction to his IME and even in his IME he reports regarding his evaluation of

me. For instance, the MCMI-IV indicates possible DSM-V diagnoses of Major Depression (recurrent,

severe): Somatic Symptom Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, yet in his mental status

examination he reports "did not appear to be depressed" in the category of emotional state he

reports "no sign of clinical depression" and in the anxiety level he reports "no evidence of clinical

anxiety." However. Dr. Warick reports in the psychological testing category the MCMI-IV reports

"On Axis i her diagnosis is consistent with anxiety, somatization, as well as depression. These

diagnoses wouid be consistent with my own clinical impression after I evaluated heron 11123116"

Dr. Warick demonstrates assessments that are not congruent, unprofessional, unethical and his

court testimony is misleading to say the least.

He was unethical and unprofessional in answering questions that culminated in answers that are

outside of his field of expertise. For example, when asked what were my job duties, he could not

answer, however, when asked if I could perform my job duties after it was explained what was

performed, he said I was able to perform the job duties. The basis of this question directly relates to

how job duties ore performed and the duties explained to him were of a physical nature, not

psychological, which is not an area in which he was educated. Consequently, by answering

questions out of his area of knowledge he demonstrated behavior that is unethical, provides an

inaccurate assessment and is misleading to the courts.

Dr. Warick was not cooperative with answering questions when cross examined. I have been

representing myself and I am not an attorney. I am a Public Safety Dispatcher. My questions were

not complex. Such questions like, define mental terrorism or color of authority were argued to

have various meanings and therefore, he could not define it. When asked about his work with low

enforcement, he indicated he had treated many patients in the field, yet he could not answer my

question about being able to compartmentalize emotions and be able to provide factual

information regarding a situation or incident. Dr. Warick indicated he could not testify to how low

enforcement would train employees. Dr. Warick also would not listen to a simple question referring

to a list of physical job duties he just finished testifying to when asked by Mr. Glauberman, that

were used to indicate I could perform all the duties required in his report. When I asked if he would

agree that those duties he was referring to and looking at in the exhibit, were in fact, all physical

duties, he argued he could not testify to my physical abilities. He argued and Your Honor, you hod

to admonish him to listen to my question and answer as he was an "expert witness".

Dr. Warick was easily confused when attempting to hove him review various portions of Mr.

Glauberman's binder of information that was clearly marked with a table of contents, page

numbers, and exhibits. Dr. Warick had to be walked through the binder by Mr. Glauberman during

questioning minutes before I asked him questions, yet appearing "confused" when I referred to

various sections or pages of the some document.

Dr. Warick's report contained information pertaining to incidents from my childhood as

contributing to my current emotional and psychological status. This information is impertinent to

my current status and ability to perform the duties of a Public Safety Dispatcher. If those details

had any impact on my current situation, how would CHP hove allowed me to perform my duties as

required for the lost 18 years? Dr. Worick failed to inquire during his 40-minute oppaintment with

me (before Thanksgiving Holiday) details as to what was adding to my stress and anxiety. As

expressed in our proceeding, having several co-workers (friends) die within o year was a major

contribution: one was found hanging in his garage and another was working with us one day and

disappeared the next. She was dying from cancer, yet, Barstow management would not give

updates as to her health. You had to ask very specific people - John Perry and Debbie Garcia -

both dispatch supervisors who hove created such a hostile work environment, I felt unable to

approach and would wait until she called me herself asking for my help regarding her retirement.

Another Officer crushed in between his patrol cor and a Honda sedan being driven by a

methamphetamine user, who hod been high for over 3 days. The wife of a close family friend and

Officer who lost his wife after an intense battle of stomach cancer; leaving him to raise two young

daughters. An officer involved shooting where his radio communications failed due to new

equipment and the "bugs" not being located.

If you recall. Dr. Warick testified he did not core how my co-workers/friends died - his job was to

evaluate me. How do you get a full understanding if you do not inquire? The list of duties ColPERS

utilizes to determine if a person con retum to work is inadequate. The list contains physical abilities

only. However, a Public Safety Dispatcher is taught early on in their career, it is your duty to remain

calm when our officers ore in harm's way in the field. It is our voice that helps the officer remain

"grounded" and can hear someone reassuring they are not alone and help is not too for away.

We help keep them alive. Does this mean that inside myself I am not full of adrenaline, stomach is

in knots, fingers ore shaking and hoovering over the keyboard waiting for the next radio

transmission? These ore things that are not considered by ColPERS nor the expert witnesses they

coll upon to spend 40 minutes to give a full evaluation of if I am capable of returning to work.

In my situation, I hove endured the regular duties of the position, but when assigned to Barstow

Dispatch Center, it was magnified hundreds of times over because of the mental terrorism caused

by married CHP Public Safety Dispatch Supervisors (PSDSIs) and Management. Dr. Warick did very

little to inquire into the work environment, issues pertaining to supervision, etc.

The management. Captain Patrick Rowe and Lieutenant Shann Setter understood there was a

problem with the PSDSIs, yet turned a blind eye and did nothing to resolve the issues. John Perry

and Debbie Garcia knew they were unstoppable and could act however they wanted because

nobody was going to do anything about their behaviors. This allowed them to further harass,

retaliate against anyone who tried to bring light to their behaviors, and allowed them to taunt their

prey with various write up's, calling the person into their office right before they were to go home

(usually kept later than their shift without being compensated with overtime), yell at you while you

ore attempting to professionally assist a 9-1-1 caller and sometimes kick your choir while you were

working or be so close to you when they were talking you could feel their spit on your face

(documented in 40 page complaint submitted with medical evidence).

Being a Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD) has many required duties, functions, and requires the ability

to do them all together in a matter of seconds because it could be someone's life or death. In

order to be successful, a PSD must be able to "toughen" the emotional layers and remain "under

control" when speaking to officers in the field or 9-1-1 callers several hours a day. Something

CalPERS and the panel of doctor's foil to delve into is a person's mental ability to control emotions

and remain in control.

The sole focus continues to be a list of physical duties compiled by CalPERS and at times, the job

description does not match what CHP maintains as its list essential duties for the PSD. This situation

pits the system against a loyal worker who is honestly injured on the job and makes it impossible for

someone like me to support myself, let alone a family.

Respectfully,

uDan^tte C. [Yria

)ndent

December 17, 2017 t oa-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Danette C. Yriarte Mulvaney - IN PRO PER

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

In the Matter of the Application forIndustrial Disability Retirement of:

DANETTE C. MULVANEY,

Respondent,

and

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,

Respondentvs.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT

SYSTEM

Petitioner

Case No.: 2017-0278

OAH NO. 2017060793

RESPONDENT MULVANEY'S OBJECTIONS TO

CalPERS RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL

EVIDENCE

TO THE COURT, ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES OF RECORD:

Danette C. Mulvaney, IN PRO PER and Respondent, hereby objects to Petitioner's response to the

supplemental evidence submitted and requests the court to find all testimony and reports of expert witness. Dr.

Lawrence H. Warick inadmissible as his findings are conflicting, misleading, and unprofessional.

Dr. Warick's testimony during the appeal included misrepresenting and conflicting information.

Specifically, information regarding the initial impression from a patient like myself, mimic muscles are criteria set

forth in the DSM V that are utilized to make a clinical diagnosis. He testified I did not display mimic muscles,

therefore, I did not show I was depressed in his expert opinion.

The conflicting information that Dr. Warick provided the court was his testimony compared to his written

report and findings of the November 2016 appointment. In court, he stated I was not depressed nor did I show

RESPONDENT MULVANEY'S OBJECTIONS TO CalPERS RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE

the Matter of Danette C. Yriarte Mulvaney-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

during our appointment any anxiety; however, the MCMl-IV indicates possible DSM-V diagnoses of major

depression; somatic symptom disorder and adjustment disorder with anxiety. Yet in Dr. Warick's mental status

examination he reports "did not appear to be depressed". In the category of emotional state, he reports "no sign of

clinical depression: and in the anxiety level he reports "no evidence of clinical anxiety". However, Dr. Warick

reports in the psychological testing category the MCMI-IV reports "on Axis I, her diagnosis is consistent with

anxiety, somatization, as well as depression. These diagnoses would be consistent with my own clinical impression

after I evaluated her on 11/23/16". Dr. Warick demonstrates assessments that are not congruent, unprofessional,

unethical and his court testimony is misleading to say the least.

California is one of the only places in the country that knows the importance of a Public Safety Dispatcher

because they are included in the California vehicle code; §2266VC (referred to previously known title of

Communications Operator I/II). In essence with Government Code 2268, Officers are required to be able to perform

all their duties 100% no matter if they hold the position of the Commissioner or that of a Public Affairs Officer.

{Mamperger v. Public Employees' Retirement System (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 873.) The same should be for that of

law enforcement personnel. Public Safety Dispatchers'. Currently, 1 know it is not the case and there isn't a law

supporting my opinion; however, there is a major flaw in the current system. 1 would not want someone who was

not mentally prepared to handle my call if my life depended upon it. Nor would 1 want that type of person to hold a

family members life in their hands either.

With Dillard v. City of Los Angeles (1942) 20 Cal. 2d 599 and Hurley v. Sykes (1924) 69 Cal. App 310,

pension statues are to be liberally construed and the object of disability allowance is not solely to compensate a

member with a pension. The objective of disability retirement is the effecting efficiency and economy in public

service by replacement of employees, without hardship or prejudice, who have become superannuated or otherwise

incapacitated. (Gov. Code, § 20001).

CalPERS appears to want to rule in a black and white manner and to the letter of the law. The problem is

our world we work and live in is not clear cut. The reports submitted from my workers compensation case should

be allowed as they are from professional medical doctors who are approved to provide medical care for persons in

RESPONDENT MULVANEY'S OBJECTIONS TO CalPERS RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE

the Matter of Danette C. Yriarte Mulvaney-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the workers compensation system. If CalPERS allows a medical expert such as Dr. Warick, then experts on a list

provided by SCIF should be treated with the same respect and also referred to as medical experts.

I pray the court will concur that I, Danette C. Yriarte Mulvaney, should be granted a fiill medical retirement

based on my inability to perform the duties of a Public Safety Dispatcher due to emotional and psychological issues

that were experienced while assigned to Barstow Dispatch Center under the immediate supervision of married

Public Safety Dispatch Supervisors, Debbie Garcia and John Periy.

Dated this 20 of December, 2017.

ulvanewIN PRO PER

RESPONDENT MULVANEY'S OBJECTIONS TO CalPERS RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE

the Matter of Danette C. Yriarte Mulvaney-3

California Public Employees' Retirement SystemLegal OfficeP.O. Box 942707

Sacramento, OA 94229-2707^ TTY: (877) 249-7442

CalPERS 795-3675 phone • (916) 795-3659 fanwww.calpers.ca.gov

RefNo. 2017-0278

January 19,2018

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Danette C. Mulvaney

SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Application for Industnal Disability Retirement ofDANETTE C. MULVANEY. Respondent, and CALIFORNIAHIGHWAY PATROL, Respondent.

Dear Ms. Mulvaney:

This is to forward a photocopy of the Proposed Decision of the Administrative LawJudge in the above-named matter. In accordance with the Administrative ProcedureAct, it has no force or effect until the Board of Administration (Board) of the CalifomiaPublic Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) takes formal action to either adopt it,remand it. or decline to adopt It In favor of its own decision.

Your appeal has been calendared for consideration by the Board at its regular meetingon March 21,2018. Although oral argument Is not allowed, the parties may submitwritten argument for or against the Proposed Decision.

As part of this argument, you may also ask the Board to designate the decision asprecedent, in whole or in part, if it is adopted. The purpose of designating precedent isto provide guidance to the Board and other parties in future appeals, where the disputedlaw and issues are the same. This designation has no effect on the binding outcome ofyour appeal. CalPERS staff routinely submits written argument, and may make thissame request of the Board. Or, the Board may choose to designate a given decision asprecedent, on its own motion. For this reason, although you are not required to take aposition, if you have a preference against precedential status you should explain why inyour written argument to the Board.

In deciding whether to designate precedent, the Board will always consider. Does thedecision contain a significant iegai or poHcy determination of generai appHcation that isiikeiy to recur? Does it inciude a dear and complete analysis of the issues in sufficientdetail so that interested parties can understand why the findings of fact were made, andhow the law was applied?

Danette C. MulvaneyJanuary 19.2018Page 2 of 2

Ail precedential decisions will be published with a cumulative index, and madeavailable free of charge on the CalPERS website, (http://www.calpers.ca.gov). They willalso be available In "hard copy" upon written request to this office. Any precedentialdecision may be de-published at the request of an interested party, after an opportunityfor public comment and at the sole discretion of the Board.

Your written argument should be no longer than six pages, and must be receivedby CalPERS no later than March 7, 2018. Please note, even if you miss this deadlinethe Board will still act on the Proposed Decision. All written argument will be included inthe agenda item, and mailed simultaneously to the Board and all parties. Yourargument will not be disclosed to the attorney assigned to this matter until then. Pleaseredact personal information, as Respondent Arguments become a public documentwhen included in the agenda item. As mentioned earlier, parties will not be allowedto orally respond to the Board on the merits of written argument. Please title yoursubmission as "Respondent's Argument" and send it to:

Cheree Swedensky, Assistant to the BoardCalPERS Executive Office

P.O. Box 942701

Sacramento, OA 94229-2701Fax: (916) 795-3972

If you have any questions about this procedure, you may contact Charles H.Glauberman, Senior Attorney, at (916) 795-2992.

Sincerely,

SABRINASAVALA

Legal Office

SMS

Enclosure

cc: Tim Castle, California Highway Patrol

DANETTE C. YRIARTE MULVANEY

2/17/2017

Matthew G Jacobs, General Counsel

Attn: Charles H Glauberman, Senior Staff Attorney, SBN 261649PO BOX 942707

Sacramento, CA. 94229-2707

Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING RESPONSE - In the matter of the Application for IndustrialDisability Retirement of DANETTE C. MULVANEY (Yriarte), Respondent, andCalifornia Highway Patrol Respondent. OAH No. 2017060793

Dear Mr. Glauberman:

I have received your letter along with the supplemental reports from Dr. Lawrence H. Warick, M.D.

and Dr. Robert J. Kolesnik, M.D. dated in November 2017.

Although I submitted several reports from the treating doctors 1 have been seen by and continue

to see, I disagree with CalPERS determinations, specifically, the reports submitted by and testimony

provided by Dr. Lawrence H. Warick, M.D. It is at this time, I would like to request reports and

testimony of the expert witness. Dr. Warick. M.D. be rejected and non-admissible based upon

inaccurate and conflicting information, misleading testimony, various pertinent issues were not

addressed by Dr. Warick and lastly, unethical and unprofessional behaviors.

Dr. Warick reported I was not depressed because my facial mimic muscles were in such a way that

they did not indicate depression. He added he could tell a person is depressed by the way these

muscles have movement or their lack of movement as an individual cannot fake the movements.

When asked if mimic muscles were a criterion set forth in the DSM V to make a clinical diagnosis of

depression. Dr. Warick stated no. To imply to the court a diagnosis of depression can be made by a

cursory observation is reckless, misleading and unprofessional.

Additionally, in his court testimony Dr. Warick stated I was not depressed nor did I show anxiety,

which is in direct contradiction to his IME and even in his IME he reports regarding his evaluation of

me. For instance, the MCMI-iV indicates possible DSM-V diagnoses of Major Depression (recurrent,

severe); Somatic Symptom Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, yet in his mental status

examination he reports "did not appear to be depressed" In the category of emotional state he

reports "no sign of clinical depression" and in the anxiety level he reports "no evidence of clinical

anxiety," However, Dr. Warick reports in the psychological testing category the MCMI-IV reports

"On Axis I, her diagnosis is consistent with anxiety, somatization, as well as depression. These

diagnoses would be consistent with my own ciinicai impression after I evaluated her on 11/23116"

Dr. Warick demonstrates assessments that are not congruent, unprofessional, unethical and his

court testimony is misleading to say the least.

He was unethical and unprofessional in answering questions that culminated in answers that are

outside of his field of expertise. For example, when asked what were my job duties, he could not

answer, however, when asked if I could perform my job duties after it was explained what was

performed, he said I was able to perform the job duties. The basis of this question directly relates to

how job duties are performed and the duties explained to him were of a physical nature, not

psychological, which is not on area in which he was educated. Consequently, by answering

questions out of his area of knowledge he demonstrated behavior that is unethical, provides an

inaccurate assessment and is misleading to the courts.

Dr. Warick was not cooperative with answering questions when cross examined. I have been

representing myself and I am not on attorney. I am a Public Safety Dispatcher. My questions were

not complex. Such questions like, define mental terrorism or color of authority were argued to

hove various meanings and therefore, he could not define it. When asked about his work with low

enforcement, he indicated he had treated many patients in the field, yet he could not answer my

question about being able to compartmentalize emotions and be able to provide factual

information regarding a situation or incident. Dr. Warick indicated he could not testify to how low

enforcement would train employees. Dr. Warick also would not listen to a simple question referring

to a list of physical job duties he just finished testifying to when asked by you, Mr. Glouberman, that

were used to indicate I could perform all the duties required in his report. When I asked if he would

agree that those duties he was referring to and looking at in the exhibit, were in fact, all physical

duties, he argued he could not testify to my physical abilities. He argued and Your Honor, you had

to admonish him to listen to my question and answer as he was an "expert witness".

Dr. Warick was easily confused when attempting to hove him review various portions of your binder

of information that was clearly marked with a table of contents, page numbers, and exhibits. Dr.

Warick had to be walked through the binder by you during your questioning minutes before I

asked him questions, yet appearing "confused" when I referred to various sections or pages of the

same document.

Dr. Worick's report contained information pertaining to incidents from my childhood as

contributing to my current emotional and psychological status. This information is impertinent to

my current status and ability to perform the duties of a Public Safety Dispatcher. If those details

had any impact on my current situation, how would CHP hove allowed me to perform my duties as

required for the last 18 years? Dr. Warick tailed to inquire during his 40-minute appointment with

me (before Thanksgiving Holiday) details as to what was adding to my stress and anxiety. As

expressed in our proceeding, having several co-workers (friends) die within a year was a major

contribution; one was found hanging in his garage and another was working with us one day and

disappeared the next. She was dying from cancer, yet, Barstow management would not give

updates as to her health. You hod to ask very specific people - John Perry and Debbie Garcia -

both dispatch supervisors who hove created such a hostile work environment, I felt unable to

approach and would wait until she called me herself asking tor my help regarding her retirement.

Another Officer crushed in between his patrol cor and a Honda sedan being driven by a

methamphetamine user, who hod been high tor over 3 days. The wife of a close family friend and

Officer who lost his wife after an intense battle of stomach cancer; leaving him to raise two young

daughters. An officer involved shooting where his radio communications failed due to new

equipment and the "bugs" not being located.

If you recall. Dr. Warick testified he did not core how my co-workers/friends died - his job was to

evaluate me. How do you get a full understanding if you do not inquire? The list of duties ColPERS

utilizes to determine if a person con return to work is inadequate. The list contains physical abilities

only. However, a Public Safety Dispatcher is taught early on in their career, it is your duty to remain

calm when our officers ore in harm's way in the field. It is our voice that helps the officer remain

"grounded" and can hear someone reassuring they are not alone and help is not too for away.

We help keep them alive. Does this mean that inside myself I am not full of adrenaline, stomach is

in knots, fingers ore shaking and hoovering over the keyboard waiting for the next radio

transmission? These ore things that are not considered by ColPERS nor the expert witnesses they

coll upon to spend 40 minutes to give a full evaluation of if I am capable of returning to work.

In my situation, I hove endured the regular duties of the position, but when assigned to Barstow

Dispatch Center, it was magnified hundreds of times over because of the mental terrorism caused

by married CHP Public Safety Dispatch Supervisors (PSDSIs) and Management. Dr. Warick did very

little to inquire into the work environment, issues pertaining to supervision, etc.

The management. Captain Patrick Rowe and Lieutenant Shann Setter understood there was a

problem with the PSDSIs, yet turned a blind eye and did nothing to resolve the issues. John Perry

and Debbie Garcia knew they were unstoppable and could act however they wanted because

nobody was going to do anything about their behaviors. This allowed them to further harass,

retaliate against anyone who tried to bring light to their behaviors, and allowed them to taunt their

prey with various write up's, calling the person into their office right before they were to go home

(usually kept later than their shift without being compensated with overtime), yell at you while you

ore attempting to professionally assist a 9-1-1 caller and sometimes kick your choir while you were

working or be so close to you when they were talking you could feel their spit on your face

(documented in 40 page complaint submitted with medical evidence).

Being a Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD) has many required duties, functions, and requires the ability

to do them all together in a matter of seconds because it could be someone's life or death. In

order to be successful, a PSD must be able to "toughen" the emotional layers and remain "under

control" when speaking to officers in the field or 9-1-1 callers several hours a day. Something

CalPERS and the panel of doctor's foil to delve into is a person's mental ability to control emotions

and remain in control.

The sole focus continues to be a list of physical duties compiled by CalPERS and at times, the job

description does not match what CHP maintains as its list essential duties for the PSD. This situation

pits the system against a loyal worker who Is honestly injured on the job and makes it impossible for

someone like me to support myself, let alone a family.

ectfully.

tte C. (Yria

pondent

Mulvaney

December 17, 2017 v ;