Anaheim to Pay Fired Officer Back Wages : Courts: City says fighting him in court would have cost more than the $155,000 settlement. Patrolman failed to help injured man.

The city has agreed to pay $155,000 in back wages to a police officer who was fired for abandoning a drunk and injured homeless man outside a hospital and then falsely reporting the incident.

Under a settlement signed Jan. 7 but newly disclosed, the city also reinstated Officer Bernard Rubio for one day on the condition that he immediately resign.

City officials said Tuesday they accepted the settlement because, after losing one round in Superior Court, it would have been more expensive and time-consuming to continue fighting Rubio’s lawsuit to get back his job.

“We would have to face an uphill battle at the appeals court level in getting the lower court’s (decision) overturned,” said City Manager Allan L. Roeder.

Rubio could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Rubio was fired in January, 1992, after an internal investigation that concluded he violated department policy when he left the homeless man outside Hoag Hospital instead of making sure he received medical help.

Rubio had found the man, Philip Stennett, loitering at a liquor store and suffering from a slight cut on his face.

Once Rubio drove away from the hospital, Stennett walked toward the entrance but collapsed into some bushes, according to court records.

Meanwhile, Rubio logged “GOA,” or gone on arrival, on the police report, indicating that Stennett had left the liquor store by the time the officer arrived and that no statement was taken.

Rubio, who filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking job reinstatement, said in court records he left Stennett after he determined that the man was not hurt. Rubio also said he didn’t see Stennett fall down.

In April, 1993, Superior Court Judge William P. Rylaarsdam ruled that Rubio failed in his ethical duty by leaving Stennett without getting him help, and that the officer had falsified his report.

However, the judge concluded that firing was too harsh a punishment because the department had apparently tolerated similar actions from officers in the past.

Also, Rylaarsdam found that “the city has a policy to permit officers to leave a person who is so intoxicated as to be unable to take care of himself where found, or even a policy which would discourage an officer from seeing to it that aid is rendered to such a person.”

Such a policy, Rylaarsdam said, “would seem to create an atmosphere where conduct such as (Rubio’s) implicitly is given an aura of approval.” The judge ordered that the department rehire Rubio, pay him back pay and impose a less severe punishment.

The city asked the appeals court to overturn Rylaarsdam’s ruling, but finally relented to a settlement that involved the officer’s resignation.

City officials also disagreed with the judge, insisting the department has no policy, written or otherwise, allowing officers to leave an individual.