An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 8 – Leaves And Absences

employee is on duty and incurs an injury from recreational activity, Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) does not apply. Thus, a police officer who was in an on-call status, and who had permission to play in a game of softball with co-employees, was held to sustain compensable injuries arising from the game. 1438 Thus, Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) would not prohibit a finding of compensability if the athletic injury occurs during “duty” time. Under the more recent cases, the test of compensability in this area boils down to the following questions:  Did the employee believe that the activity was an implied or express requirement of employment?

 Was this belief objectively reasonable? It may not be necessary for the employee to show that the athletic activity was in fact expressly or impliedly part of his employment, only that he reasonably believed that it was.

In one case, a police officer who was a member of the Special Response Team (SRT) injured his ankle while jogging off-duty. The officer contended that he ran to maintain his physical condition. SRT members were regularly required to pass a physical fitness test. 1439 The California Court of Appeal directed the WCAB to grant benefits.

The court based its decision on the following factors, which, it concluded, showed that such off-duty physical exercise was a reasonable expectancy of the officer’s employment:

1) SRT maintained special physical fitness standards; 2) SRT members were required to take fitness tests;

3) SRT duty was physically demanding and required a high degree of agility;

4) SRT members were told of the necessity of off-duty exercise.

In contrast, in another recent case, an officer who served on the Hostage Negotiating Team (HNT) injured his knee while playing basketball in the City’s gym during his lunch hour. The officer was not required to play in the game. The City did not have formal physical fitness tests or guidelines. The City had exercise facilities available for employees’ use, subject to restrictions on use without prior department approval. The court denied compensability because the City’s rules carefully spelled out the circumstances and conditions under which use of the City’s facilities were permitted, and what athletic activities were authorized. The City did not at that time have mandatory physical fitness standards or require fitness tests of its police officers. The court noted that in view of the department’s rules concerning pre-authorized athletic activities, the employer was entitled to limit its liability for workers’ compensation to injuries sustained in designated and pre-approved athletic activities. 1440

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 326