In Pettigrew v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2006 WL 2729667, Cal.App. 3 Dist., Sept. 26, 2006), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a correctional officer, who was injured after he stopped at an accident scene while on his way to work, was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.
The Court ruled that because the officer was not within the course and scope of his employment when injured, and because correctional officers’ law enforcement authority is more limited than that of other peace officers, he was not entitled to benefits.
Facts
Ryan Pettigrew was employed as a correctional officer at the California Medical Facility of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. While driving to work, he stopped at the scene of a multi-vehicle accident and began assisting an injured motorist. An oncoming car struck a parked truck at the scene, causing the truck to strike Pettigrew and injure him.
Pettigrew sought workers’ compensation benefits for his injury, but the workers compensation judge and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) both ruled that he was not acting in the scope of his employment when he was injured, and was therefore not entitled to benefits. Pettigrew appealed.
Decision
The Court of Appeal reviewed California Labor Code sections spelling out the circumstances under which injured workers are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The Court said that workers traveling to and from work are not rendering service to their employers, and that therefore injuries occurring during the commute generally do not qualify for benefits.
There are, however, some exceptions for law enforcement officers. But the Court rejected Pettigrew’s claim that all law enforcement officers who are injured while performing duties during their commute are exempt from that rule. His status as a correctional officer is distinct from that of other peace officers because his law enforcement authority is limited to the confines of the prison where he works. Labor Code Section 3600.2 explicitly excludes correctional officers from benefits accorded other off-duty peace officers.
The Court found, “Pettigrew was not on his employer’s premises and was not trying to protect property of his employer. Nor were his actions here reasonably contemplated by his employment.” Pettigrew therefore failed to show grounds for annulling the WCAB’s denial of his benefits and the ruling was affirmed.
Legal Alert Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.