By Jake Jacobsmeyer

The California 3rd District Court of Appeal affirmed decision of a WCAB denying reconsideration from a trial determination that finding a correctional officer, even though in uniform, was not in the course and scope of employment when stopping at a motor vehicle accident to render assistance on the way to work.

In Pettigrew v. WCAB, the applicant was a sworn correctional officer who was in his uniform, covered by a jacket when he came upon a motor vehicle accident on the way to work. There were several other correctional officers at the scent but none were involved in the accident. While rendering aid to an injured motorist, the officer was seriously injured when a car struck his vehicle.

There is a line of cases which supports the concept that public safety officers are acting in the course and scope of employment when in uniform and on their way to work if they stop and render aid in an emergency situation.

In Garzoli v. WCAB and Minor v. Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Board, the courts focused on the responsibility for public safety that comes with being a sworn safety officer. In each case there was substantial evidence to support the employee's belief that it was a requirement of their job to render aid in an emergency while wearing their uniform.

The WCAB and the court found a significant difference in the expectations of a correctional officer including a lack of statewide jurisdiction to act. The court concluded that the WCAB was correct in determining that a correctional officer's oath is different than that of a public safety officer, that the employee was not expected by the employer to stop and render aid in an roadside emergency and that a correctional officers jurisdiction and duties began and ended at the doors of the facility at which he/she was employed.

This decision serves to limit the extension of employment-related injuries to non-public safety officers whose duties are more limited that sworn peace officers who are frequently provided with a more expansive interpretation of course and scope of employment because of the nature of their employment and the expectation of both their employers and the public at large that public safety officers are always on call whenever an emergency presents itself. However the mere wearing of a uniform is clearly not sufficient to extent the nature of the employment mission to the general public welfare. A public safety officer takes a much more expansive oath to serve the public and has much more wide ranging job duties that those of a correctional officer.

This case can be located by double clicking on the link to the right.

Attorney Richard "Jake" Jacobsmeyer is a partner in the firm Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain & Claffey and can be reached at jakejacobsmeyer@shawlaw.org.

-------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.