So, where does this liberal interpretation of the law end? If an officer is performing housework or lifting his children, is that considered ‘training’? Dare I ask about ‘physical activity’ with one’s spouse or significant other? If anyone says California’s system has been fixed, decisions like this speak otherwise!
This ruling opens up a big can of worms. If he is entitled to workers’ compensation for this injury, an injury the court ruled arose “out of and in the course of employment” (quotes from generic w/c language, not the court) how long will it be until BHPD is sued for not paying police officers for their training time? California is a very tricky state to do business in and this ruling could go far beyond what the judges may have intended.
I twisted my ankle while I was walking to the post office to mail my continuing ed course to maintain my license. That should qualify for coverage, heh?
Sorry, The G, your reasoning for denying Roberto’s claim is faulty. The options available to a worker are not considered when determining claim vailidity. What is considered is whether the injury arose from activities arising from the work or work environment – in the course of scope of work. While I would normally say Roberto’s claim is denied because his activity did not arise out of the course and scope of work, this ruling puts that into question in California.
This ruling is a very slippery slope. For example, Alaska Airlines requires all flight employees to be non-smokers. If an employee must attend meetings to maintain their non-smoking lifestyle (treatment for addiction) and the employee is then injured during the course and scope of the meeting, would the employee be able to draw workers’ compensation coverage? The employee was performing an activity outside of work hours and control for the sole purpose of maintaining employment – as was this officer.
There are a number of “what-ifs” that could be posited here. The main point is that this court just gave the green light to a great number of claims that should never go through the workers’ compensation system. Bad call by the court.
I sprained my wrist on a bad golf shot in Hawaii during am isurance Company junkit, I guess I should fiel a cliam. If not for the fact that I was performing during my course of duty, I woulnd not have injured my wrist. Quick some get me my 7 iron.
When is the general public going to realize that ALL goverment agencies are gaming the system and the rich,cushy benefit entitlements will have to stop.
You can bet if one of us fell on our *** due our own clumsiness we wouldn’t be compensated. I certainly wouldn’t want this idiot responding to an emergency call for me when he can’t even run in a recreational setting. Staying fit is a lifestyle. To consider everything and anything this guy does as “training for his job” is nonsensical and almost as stupid as the CA Court. How much training does it take to pass a test running 1/2 mile per year?
So, where does this liberal interpretation of the law end? If an officer is performing housework or lifting his children, is that considered ‘training’? Dare I ask about ‘physical activity’ with one’s spouse or significant other? If anyone says California’s system has been fixed, decisions like this speak otherwise!
This ruling opens up a big can of worms. If he is entitled to workers’ compensation for this injury, an injury the court ruled arose “out of and in the course of employment” (quotes from generic w/c language, not the court) how long will it be until BHPD is sued for not paying police officers for their training time? California is a very tricky state to do business in and this ruling could go far beyond what the judges may have intended.
I twisted my ankle while I was walking to the post office to mail my continuing ed course to maintain my license. That should qualify for coverage, heh?
No. Because you could have mailed it from work.
The officer was being paid on vacation, and he needed to continue to train to maintain his fitness during the two weeks he was off work.
A good decision by the court.
Sorry, The G, your reasoning for denying Roberto’s claim is faulty. The options available to a worker are not considered when determining claim vailidity. What is considered is whether the injury arose from activities arising from the work or work environment – in the course of scope of work. While I would normally say Roberto’s claim is denied because his activity did not arise out of the course and scope of work, this ruling puts that into question in California.
This ruling is a very slippery slope. For example, Alaska Airlines requires all flight employees to be non-smokers. If an employee must attend meetings to maintain their non-smoking lifestyle (treatment for addiction) and the employee is then injured during the course and scope of the meeting, would the employee be able to draw workers’ compensation coverage? The employee was performing an activity outside of work hours and control for the sole purpose of maintaining employment – as was this officer.
There are a number of “what-ifs” that could be posited here. The main point is that this court just gave the green light to a great number of claims that should never go through the workers’ compensation system. Bad call by the court.
I sprained my wrist on a bad golf shot in Hawaii during am isurance Company junkit, I guess I should fiel a cliam. If not for the fact that I was performing during my course of duty, I woulnd not have injured my wrist. Quick some get me my 7 iron.
When is the general public going to realize that ALL goverment agencies are gaming the system and the rich,cushy benefit entitlements will have to stop.
You can bet if one of us fell on our *** due our own clumsiness we wouldn’t be compensated. I certainly wouldn’t want this idiot responding to an emergency call for me when he can’t even run in a recreational setting. Staying fit is a lifestyle. To consider everything and anything this guy does as “training for his job” is nonsensical and almost as stupid as the CA Court. How much training does it take to pass a test running 1/2 mile per year?