City of Stockton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 474, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 1158, 135 Cal.App.4th 1513 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained during a voluntary, off-duty athletic activity is not compensable under workers' compensation merely because the employer has a general expectation that the employee remain in good physical condition. For the injury to be compensable, the employee's participation in the specific activity must be a reasonable expectancy of, or be expressly or impliedly required by, the employment.
Facts:
- Sean Jenneiahn was employed as a police officer by the City of Stockton.
- The City's police department had a regulation requiring officers to maintain good physical condition, but it did not require any physical fitness tests after hiring and had never disciplined an officer for not being physically fit.
- Jenneiahn was aware of a general need to be physically fit for his job, but not the specific regulation.
- While off duty, Jenneiahn hyperextended his leg and fractured his tibia during a pickup basketball game.
- The game occurred at a facility owned and operated by the Stockton Police Officers’ Association (SPOA), the police union, not the City.
- The City’s Chief of Police had issued an order prohibiting officers from visiting the SPOA facility for any reason while on duty.
- The basketball game was not an employer-sponsored or scheduled event.
- Jenneiahn testified that he stayed in shape by running and officiating games and would have been in shape regardless of whether he played basketball.
Procedural Posture:
- Officer Sean Jenneiahn filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.
- A workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found the injury was compensable.
- The employer, the City of Stockton, filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
- In a two-to-one decision, the WCAB denied the City's petition.
- The City of Stockton (petitioner) then petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of review to annul the award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an off-duty injury sustained by a police officer during a voluntary, pickup basketball game arise out of and in the course of his employment, making it eligible for workers' compensation benefits, when the employer only has a general expectation that officers remain physically fit and does not require participation in that specific activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Scotland, P. J.
No. An off-duty injury sustained by a police officer during a voluntary, pickup basketball game does not arise out of and in the course of his employment simply because the employer has a general expectation of physical fitness. The court held that under Labor Code section 3600, subdivision (a)(9), an injury from a voluntary, off-duty athletic activity is only compensable if participation in that specific activity is a 'reasonable expectancy' of the employment. This requires applying a two-part test from Ezzy v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.: (1) whether the employee subjectively believed participation was expected, and (2) whether that belief was objectively reasonable. Here, the court found no evidence Jenneiahn subjectively believed his employer expected him to play pickup basketball; he only believed in general fitness. Even if he had, such a belief would be objectively unreasonable because the employer had no connection to the activity—it was not sponsored, encouraged, or required, and it occurred at a private facility the employer had barred officers from visiting on duty. General assertions about the benefits of fitness are insufficient to establish compensability, as that would create limitless liability contrary to legislative intent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'reasonable expectancy' test under Labor Code § 3600(a)(9), reinforcing the legislative intent to limit employer liability for off-duty recreational injuries. By emphasizing that the expectancy must relate to the specific activity causing the injury, not just general fitness, the court prevents the exception from swallowing the rule. This precedent protects employers from potentially limitless liability for any athletic activity an employee chooses to pursue for their own health. Future cases involving injuries to public safety officers during off-duty exercise will require a much stronger nexus to a specific, employer-mandated fitness requirement or test, rather than a generalized duty to remain in shape.
