by them. On October 18, 1962, after having reviewed the record, the Commissioners voted to deny the appeal and to sustain the action of the Police and Firemen's Retirement and Relief Board in recommending retirement of plaintiff for disability not incurred in the line of duty.
Another of the contentions of plaintiff is that the record is not clear that the entry, by Dr. Harrell of the Board of Police and Fire Surgeons in March, 1960, that the plaintiff was treated for 'post-traumatic' headache was considered. This is based solely on the fact that no specific mention of the entry appears in the reports. The court is constrained to hold that this matter was in fact before the respective bodies which passed judgment as to the disability of the plaintiff. It is, moreover, a part of the official record presented to and received by the court without objection.
Furthermore, Dr. Harrell was a member of the Board of Police and Fire Surgeons which unanimously recommended the retirement of the plaintiff because he had a 'psychophysiological musculoskeletal reaction, tension headache.' (Incidentally, the only evidence in the case on the point shows that that condition does not result from the type of accident which the plaintiff sustained.) Even if this matter had not been before the Board of Police and Fire Surgeons, the Police and Firemen's Retirement and Relief Board, and the Board of Commissioners on appeal, its absence, the court concludes, would not have been prejudicial in the light of all the other medical testimony.
The court finds that the action taken was not arbitrary or capricious but was in fact clearly justified and warranted by the record. The court further holds that Title 4, Section 527(2), is not retroactive. This matter had been disposed of prior to the effective date of the amendment, and the Commissioners were therefore not required to function under such amendment. The court also finds that the entry by Dr. Harrell was before the various bodies who heard the case.
For the foregoing reasons the complaint for mandatory injunction must be denied. It is therefore, this 9th day of October, 1964,
Ordered that the complaint be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.