In City of Los Angeles v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2007 WL 4157577, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Nov. 26, 2007), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a wife was entitled to receive death benefits after her husband died while attending an out-of-state certified public accountant conference. The Court of Appeal held that the wife was not entitled to death benefits because her husband’s job did not require him to hold a certified public accountant license and his employer did not request or invite him to attend the conference.
Facts
The City of Los Angeles (“City”) employed Jose B. DeLeon (“DeLeon”) as a Principal Accountant I.
In September 2005, DeLeon went to Atlantic City, New Jersey, to attend a convention hosted by the Philippine-American-Canadian Society of Public Accountants. The convention was held over Labor Day weekend but DeLeon took one vacation day from work to attend the conference. One day while DeLeon was walking back to his hotel after lunch, he fell and struck his head. DeLeon died a few days after the accident. DeLeon’s wife, Lucina DeLeon, filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits.
The City opposed the payment of benefits. DeLeon’s position with the City did not require a certified public accountant (“CPA”) license. The City did, however, offer a “personal achievement bonus” of 5.5% to accountants with a CPA license, and DeLeon had received a bonus for having a CPA license. The City provided training for its accountants including annual training, monthly seminars and videotaped seminars. Although some of the training offered by the City accrues credit toward CPA licensing, the City does not reimburse accountants for classes they may take toward a CPA license. The City does, however, reimburse other professionals such as lawyers and engineers for classes taken to maintain their licenses. DeLeon never sought reimbursement for outside continuing education courses. The City claimed that having a CPA license was of no benefit to the City.
A workers’ compensation administrative law judge (“WCJ”) found that DeLeon’s death was work related and awarded his wife death benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“Board”) affirmed the WCJ’s decision.
Decision
The Court of Appeal reversed the Board’s decision and found that DeLeon’s wife was not entitled to death benefits. It found that DeLeon was not engaged in a activity required by his employment with the City. In order for an injury to be compensable for workers’ compensation purposes, the employee at the time of injury must be “performing a service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment” and must also be “acting within the course of his or her employment.” An injury which occurs off of an employer’s premises occurs within the course of an employee’s employment if the employee “is doing those reasonable things which his contract of employment expressly or impliedly authorizes him to do.” If an employee is traveling for his employer’s business, an employee is considered to be acting within the course of his employment for the entire period of travel. If an injury occurs during a personal activity, the injury “is compensable if the activity was a reasonable expectation of employment.” This concept is known as the commercial traveler doctrine.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the WCJ erred in finding that the commercial traveler doctrine applied in this situation. The City asserted that the doctrine did not apply because travel to attend a conference to receive CPA credit was not expressly or impliedly authorized. The City does not reimburse for CPA coursework and DeLeon never received reimbursement for such coursework. The City received no benefit from an employee holding a CPA license and it also provided the training to accounting employees that is necessary for them to perform their jobs. The Court found that the WCJ gave undue weight to the bonus given by employer for having a CPA license. The court found that the bonus was merely “a reward for going above and beyond the requirements of the employment.”
The court also concluded that DeLeon was not on a special mission at the time of his death. Generally, an employee is not entitled to compensation for an injury that occurred while he or she was going to or departing from work. However, there is an exception, if the employee is engaged in a special mission for the employer while going to or coming from work. This exception, known as the special mission exception, requires that (1) the activity be extraordinary in relation to the routine duties of the employee, (2) the activity be within the course of the employee’s employment, and (3) the activity be “undertaken by the employee at the express or implied request of the employer and for the employer’s benefit.” Although the special activity does not have to be compulsory, “the mission must incidentally or indirectly contribute to the service and benefit of the employer.”
The court concluded that the City did not request or invite DeLeon to obtain a CPA license and it did not request or invite him to travel to Atlanta. Again, the court cited to the fact that the City provides its accountants the training it deems necessary. The court concluded that the “City only motivated or encouraged CPA licensure as a personal achievement by bonus salary not as an incentive to improve an accountant’s ability to do his job.” DeLeon’s trip was voluntary and personal and his death was not compensable as a work-related injury.