Board tables Sergeant Nathan Dorfman’s disability-retirement application, seeks independent counsel

At a public meeting, the board acknowledged receipt of Sergeant Nathan Dorfman’s application for accidental disability retirement and voted unanimously to retain independent legal counsel because of a potential conflict with its current attorney. The board also voted to accept the application but table further action until a new attorney is selected and an independent medical examination (IME) is arranged.

The motion to accept the application while pausing the decision was made by Board member Corey Cooperman and seconded by Lynn Danakis. "I move to accept the application for disability retirement from Sergeant Nathan Dorfman, but to also table the process until we have the opportunity to select legal counsel," Cooperman said during the discussion; the motion carried with a unanimous voice vote.

Board members debated next steps before taking final action. Sergeant/Board member Jay Perot urged the panel to move quickly to an IME so the medical record could be independently evaluated, saying the IME would "keep the record clean and proceed in a timely defensible manner." Other members expressed concern about ordering an IME before getting counsel because they wanted legal guidance on whether the board could specify the IME’s scope or include particular questions for the examining physician.

Several members also noted questions about the completeness of the application packet. One board member said they saw doctors’ names in the paperwork but did not see medical records that clearly document a change from light duty to a full disability designation; another said the city had accommodated light-duty status for a significant period but that the employer’s long-term ability to provide that accommodation could affect the employment outcome. Board members repeatedly emphasized that a physician — not the board — determines the medical capacity to perform job duties, while the employer decides whether reasonable accommodations are feasible.

Sergeant Nathan Dorfman, who attended the meeting, addressed the board after the motion. He asked the board to consider the medical documentation he submitted and noted that PSPRS rules allow an officer to apply for disability benefits before separation in certain circumstances. "My doctor did state about me not being able to continue in my functions of doing that," he said, asking members to take the packet of documents into account as they proceed.

Staff committed to compile recommendations for IME providers (with a focus on spine specialists) and to assemble a short list of outside attorneys for the board to review at a special meeting to be scheduled as soon as practicable. The board emphasized timeliness for the benefit of the applicant while also seeking clarification from counsel about the board’s authority to set IME scope and to prepare questions for the examiner.

The board adjourned after setting those follow-up tasks; no final disability determination was made at the meeting.