I live in Arizona and I am appalled the W/C admin ‘judge’ denied this – good thing the Appeals Court repaired but, dang, making a brave Officer go through the hassle – where is Dickie Scruggs when you need him?
As a business owner I almost always argue against questionable work comp claims. But in this case I have no doubt that that the guy acted based on his training. If it would have been me, I would have yelled “every man for himself” as I looked for a gopher hole to dive into!
What a crock! I can’ believe they ruled against him in the first place. There isn’t any such thing as an off-duty policy officer. You’re always on duty and your arrest / take action authority is not left at the police station or just in the cop car. This is what keeps good people out of this profession. Policemen are taught that if they do not take action when a crime is committed then their state/county/city/parish/township and they themselves will be culpable legally.
I don’t quite understand why this would be covered. His training taught him to get others to safety? It couldn’t have been his compassion, common sense, or even duty he felt to protect his friend? If this is covered, then where exactly does one draw the line between on duty and off duty? If I am driving over to friends house to review his coverage with him (and I am not his agent, nor is his business with the agency for which I work) would that be worker’s compensation? I am trained to understand the policy and am helping someone else out. Shouldn’t that be covered? By the logic in this case it would be. I certainly think the man was brave for what he did, but I don’t see this as on duty.
Yes, really because his police department’s guidelines said that the officer had a duty to act in an emergency protect life which was endangered. Those guidelines didn’t make an exception for friends. Other state courts have held that there is no “Good Samaritan” exception, and officers who rendered aid in an emergency (e.g., to a stranded motorist while the officer was technically off duty) are still covered under workers’ compensation.
It’s the “arising out of and in the course of” employment bit of workers’ comp law that has this covered. His injury was not in the course of his employment but did arise out of his employment because his employer required him to respond at any time, with or without notice. You see the same thing with doctors (if they work for a hospital).
Thanks for the insight. I did miss that arising out of, which seems to be a pretty broad statement. Thanks for the clarification, I retract my previous comment.
Dustin, your question about being injured while driving to a friend’s home to counsel him on insurance matters (assuming you are a licensed agent covered under a W.C. contract) WOULD be covered (in Washington State, anyway).
If you were on your way to socialize, with the insurance discussion as an afterthought, then I guess your ethics would come into play. You probably would not file a WC claim, because as a bright agent you would have already provided yourself with adaquate Auto and disability income insurance!
As the attorney for the officer in this case, I can assure you that I was stunned with the workers’ compensation judge ruled against the officer. The officer’s superior, a captain, filled out the employer’s report of injury agreeing that the injury occurred on the job, but the city’s risk management department denied it, contending that the injury was unconnected with his work. Fortunately the court of appeals followed the mainstream rule in other states and ruled in the officer’s favor in a very well written decision.
Additionally I agree with “swymmer”‘s comment that if it were me I doubt that I would have exposed myself to gunfire under those situations. As I argued in my brief to the court of appeals, civilians have no duty to act in those emergency situation but law enforcement officers do.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I live in Arizona and I am appalled the W/C admin ‘judge’ denied this – good thing the Appeals Court repaired but, dang, making a brave Officer go through the hassle – where is Dickie Scruggs when you need him?
They say… once a cop, always a cop…
As a business owner I almost always argue against questionable work comp claims. But in this case I have no doubt that that the guy acted based on his training. If it would have been me, I would have yelled “every man for himself” as I looked for a gopher hole to dive into!
What a crock! I can’ believe they ruled against him in the first place. There isn’t any such thing as an off-duty policy officer. You’re always on duty and your arrest / take action authority is not left at the police station or just in the cop car. This is what keeps good people out of this profession. Policemen are taught that if they do not take action when a crime is committed then their state/county/city/parish/township and they themselves will be culpable legally.
I don’t quite understand why this would be covered. His training taught him to get others to safety? It couldn’t have been his compassion, common sense, or even duty he felt to protect his friend? If this is covered, then where exactly does one draw the line between on duty and off duty? If I am driving over to friends house to review his coverage with him (and I am not his agent, nor is his business with the agency for which I work) would that be worker’s compensation? I am trained to understand the policy and am helping someone else out. Shouldn’t that be covered? By the logic in this case it would be. I certainly think the man was brave for what he did, but I don’t see this as on duty.
Yes, really because his police department’s guidelines said that the officer had a duty to act in an emergency protect life which was endangered. Those guidelines didn’t make an exception for friends. Other state courts have held that there is no “Good Samaritan” exception, and officers who rendered aid in an emergency (e.g., to a stranded motorist while the officer was technically off duty) are still covered under workers’ compensation.
It’s the “arising out of and in the course of” employment bit of workers’ comp law that has this covered. His injury was not in the course of his employment but did arise out of his employment because his employer required him to respond at any time, with or without notice. You see the same thing with doctors (if they work for a hospital).
Thanks for the insight. I did miss that arising out of, which seems to be a pretty broad statement. Thanks for the clarification, I retract my previous comment.
Dustin, your question about being injured while driving to a friend’s home to counsel him on insurance matters (assuming you are a licensed agent covered under a W.C. contract) WOULD be covered (in Washington State, anyway).
If you were on your way to socialize, with the insurance discussion as an afterthought, then I guess your ethics would come into play. You probably would not file a WC claim, because as a bright agent you would have already provided yourself with adaquate Auto and disability income insurance!
Happy Selling!
Swymmer
As the attorney for the officer in this case, I can assure you that I was stunned with the workers’ compensation judge ruled against the officer. The officer’s superior, a captain, filled out the employer’s report of injury agreeing that the injury occurred on the job, but the city’s risk management department denied it, contending that the injury was unconnected with his work. Fortunately the court of appeals followed the mainstream rule in other states and ruled in the officer’s favor in a very well written decision.
Additionally I agree with “swymmer”‘s comment that if it were me I doubt that I would have exposed myself to gunfire under those situations. As I argued in my brief to the court of appeals, civilians have no duty to act in those emergency situation but law enforcement officers do.
Brian “not Dickie Scruggs” Clymer