An employee suffered injuries while on the job. Three separate doctors recommended surgical intervention, but the employee refused. Later, when the employee was no longer a candidate for the recommended surgery, he applied for disability retirement. A hearing officer, and subsequently a trial court, denied appellant’s application because he had unreasonably refused to undergo recommended medical treatment that likely would have allowed him to return to work.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the employee’s inability to return to work was “not a result of their work-related injury, but rather a result of their unreasonable refusal to submit to medical treatment for that injury.” Appellant’s argument that surgery was no longer an option at the time of his application did not immunize him from the consequences of his earlier choice to refuse the recommended medical treatment when it would have been effective.
