Conversely, an off-duty recreational activity is a “reasonable expectancy” of employment if the employee is placed under direct or indirect employer influence and is pressured to perform said activity. Kidwell, 33 Cal. App. 4th at 1139. In the Kidwell case, petitioner Linda Burnett Kidwell (Ms. Kidwell) suffered an injury to her thumb while practicing a standing long jump – a required annual mandatory physical performance program (PPP) fitness test – in her home. If she passed the PPP fitness test, she could receive special benefits and, due to her past failures, received tips on how to practice from colleagues. Id.
CCP granted a denial of her application on the “grounds that [Ms. Kidwell’s] injury did not arise out of and in the course of
…show more content…
her employment.” Id. However, CCP would not have allowed her to add the long jump as part of her fitness plan, a plan which included activities previously chosen by employees that could be covered if an injury occurred, leading the court to conclude that her practicing solely for the PPP fitness test. In reaching its conclusion, the court examined the relevant statute and emphasized that voluntary off-duty recreational activities are covered only if they are reasonably expected, or expressly or impliedly required, by the employment.
§ 3600 (a)(9); Kidwell, 33 Cal. App. 4th at 1136. The court examined the reasoning CHP gave in denying Ms. Kidwell and found that it was “pure sophistry”. Kidwell, 33 Cal. App. 4th at 1138. In Kidwell, the court noted that an employer’s “indirect encouragement” creates a less than voluntary action from the employee. Id. at 1136. The activity Ms. Kidwell engaged in was simply a “requisite protocol[] of the annual PPP fitness test” and, for that reason, taken to be less than voluntary. Id. at 1138. The court emphasized that it would be unreasonable for CHP to determine that practice was not necessary to pass the PPP fitness test. In addition, the passing of the test gave incentives to Ms. Bennett that would otherwise be a detriment. Id. at 1139. Consequently, the court reasoned that the employer indirectly influenced and pressured Ms. Bennett to take part of the PPP fitness test and, therefore, her belief was objectively reasonable and her injuries were compensable. …show more content…
Id. The court will likely conclude that Mr. Bennett’s participation in an off-duty recreational activity was not a reasonable expectation of employment because the LAFD did not pressure the him to engage in swimming and the LAFD only had a general expectation for him to stay physically fit. As a result, a court will likely hold that Mr. Bennett cannot recover for his injuries. Mr. Bennett’s case is similar to the Stockton case, in which the court held that participating in the off-duty basketball game was not a reasonable expectation of employment because the employer did not sponsor the activity, schedule the activity, or require any form of physical testing. Stockton, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 1526. Similar to the Stockton case, in which the employer did not sanction the activity because the off-duty recreational act took place in a private facility which the employer had no control, id. at 1526, Mr. Bennett’s injury did not come about during an employer sanctioned event. Further, in the Stockton case, the employee was not scheduled to take part in the off-duty recreational activity where the employee received his injury. Id. Similarly, in Mr. Bennett’s case, he was not scheduled to take part in swimming sessions on behalf of the LAFD. Moreover, in the Stockton, there was no required testing that employees needed to undergo once employed. Id. at 1517. Likewise, Mr. Bennett was not subjected to additional fitness testing after his initial employment tests. Just as the court in Stockton found the employee could not recover for his injury, id. at 1526, a court will likely find that Mr. Bennett will not be compensated for his injury. The Stockton case reasoned that the employee could not recover because, even though he suffered an injury during an activity to stay fit, the game in which he received his injury was not connected to the employer. Id. The connection from the employer and the event in question cannot be made based off of a general statement to be physically fit, the lack of sponsorship of the event from the employer, and the voluntary choice of the employee to play basketball. Thus, the employee had failed the objectively reasonable prong of the “reasonable expectancy” test. Id. This reasoning applies to Mr. Bennett’s case because even though there was a general expectation to stay fit by the employer, there was no connection between his injury inflicted during a voluntary off-duty activity and the LAFD. The reason no connection exists is because the off-duty swimming session in which he injured himself was not employer sponsored, the statement to generally stay fit is insufficient to create a connection, and it was a voluntary choice. Conversely, Mr.
Bennett’s case is distinguishable from the Kidwell case, in which the court held that off-duty long jump practice is a “reasonable expectancy” of employment because the employee is placed under direct or indirect employer influence and is pressured to perform said activity. Kidwell, 33 Cal. App. 4th at 1139. In the Kidwell case, the facts showed that there was mandatory testing required of the employee. Id. Conversely, Mr. Bennett did not have any required physical testing. Further, unlike the Kidwell case, in which passing an exam would lead to higher pay and other opportunities would become available, id., in Mr. Bennet’s case there was no disadvantage in not maintaining himself physically fit and promotion was contingent on factors such as attendance, performance evaluations, and other similar factors. Finally, unlike the colleagues in the Kidwell case who gave the employee tips on how to pass her required exam, id. at 1534-35, Mr. Bennett had only received a general reminder to maintain himself in good physical shape by the Fire Captain and nothing else was said on what activities he should partake
in. The Kidwell court held that the employee’s off-duty recreational activity was a “reasonable expectancy” of employment, but the same result is not likely in the present case. The court in Kidwell reasoned that the employer had placed their employee under indirect influence and pressure, as the employee had previously failed the exam three times. Additionally, the court noted that it would be unquestionable that the employee’s failure to pass the test would affect their career. Therefore, the employee’s belief was objectively reasonable. However, this reasoning does not apply to Mr. Bennett’s case because Mr. Bennett did not experience any direct or indirect effect of employee pressures to engage in swimming; he would not have experienced any detrimental effects for failing to take part therewith. Accordingly, the circumstances prove that Mr. Bennett’s belief were not objectively reasonable. As the facts demonstrate, Mr. Bennett’s injury is not compensable because his off-duty swimming sessions were not remotely connected to hit job responsibilities. An employee is able to recover for injuries under Section 3600 of the California Labor Code if the injury arose out of a “reasonable expectancy” of employment. § 3600 (a)(9). The purpose of the “reasonable expectancy” test is to eliminate compensation for injuries too remotely far from an applicant’s job responsibilities. Kidwell, 33 Cal. App. 4th at 1136. In this case, not allowing Mr. Bennett’s recovery furthers the purpose of statute. There was no remote connection between Mr. Bennett’s off-duty swimming session and his job responsibilities because he did not experience indirect encouragement from his employer. Consequently, Mr. Bennett’s injury will most likely be uncompensated. CONCLUSION A court will likely conclude that the off-duty swimming activity at issue was not a “reasonable expectancy” of employment because an employer expressed requirement for Mr. Bennett to maintain himself in good physical shape is insufficient and the employer did not pressure him to engage in swimming sessions. As a result, a court will likely deny Mr. Bennett’s injury to be compensated.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Ward’s request unethical and Mrs. Ward’s unwillingness to change her position necessitated an informal review. That review included the academic supervisor along with the practicum supervisor and the student. Offered to the student were three options: complete a remediation plan, resign from the Counseling program, or request a university formal review. The university’s Formal Review Committee consisting of one student and two professors, all from the Counseling Department and one professor from the Education Leadership Department, determined she violated the university’s code of ethics and therefore was dismissed her from the Counseling Program. The dismissal led to the first court case, Ward v. Willbanks. The trial court ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) through summary judgment. Mrs. Ward appealed the case to the state appellate court, who reversed the decision and returned the case to the lower court for adjudication. Judicial adjudication was avoided, however, as the university settled with Mrs. Ward with a monetary payment and the removal of the expulsion from her
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
If was given the opportunity to be hired as a TR specialist the most suitable work sight that is the best fit for me would be a Long Term Care centre. With clients that are of the age of retirement are not able to take of themselves or suffered a major disability that warrants them to be under the care of a health care professional, the most logical way for TR specialist to provide effective therapy in the field of TR is through the uses of the Leisure Ability Model. This model is based on the concept of internal locus of control, in intrinsic motivation, personal causality, freedom of choice and flow through the use of three service components: treatment, leisure education and recreation participation. When using this model it is imperative
The Greenhill Community Center was a multi-service center in Coastal City. Its main purpose was to provide human service programs for various factors throughout life with an intergenerational setting. Some of these included day care, elder programs, music classes, and afterschool programs. It was founded in 1982 and was set up in an old schoolhouse. In short, this community center could use some help.
The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the use of screening procedures for student athletes is incorrect. . After an intense beginning in court, the judge denied the Actons.... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited Andrews, Mackenson.
...who violated Randy’s rights. With such little evidence from the Plaintiff, and the fact that Caruso is not a medical professional, she was not involved in the making of policies and procedures relating to medical matters. Therefore, Caruso did not act with deliberate indifference and was entitled summary judgment, because Plaintiff Parsons failed to provide sufficient evidence on Caruso.
It has been said for years that any case of educational malpractice was doomed from the start. Because of this, it was a huge surprise when the Iowa Supreme Court denied the defendant, Cedar Rapids Community School District’s motion for summary judgement. This was a case where a student sued for negligent misrepresentation by a school guidance counselor. One reason why the court may have denied the motion was because it was trying to protect a category of people who were considered especially vulnerable, the student-athlete.
Showalter, J. S. (2012). The Law of Healthcare Administration (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
Weinstock, R., Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. (2010). Competence to be executed: An ethical analysis post Panetti. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(5), 690-706. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gsu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-23176-008&site=ehost-live
Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction are the poor-quality patient care that Tomcik received and Tomcik’s health being at risk. Once engaged in a doctor-patient relationship, physicians are obligated to provide the best possible care for the patient by utilizing their skills and knowledge as expected from a competent physician under the same or similar conditions (“What Is a Doctor’s Duty of Care?” n.d.). However, in Tomcik’s situation, Dr. Evans did not deliver high-quality care, for he administered a perfunctory breast examination and thus did not follow standard protocols. There is evidence of indifference conveyed by Dr. Evans, and the lack of proper care towards Tomcik is an issue that can be scrutinized and judged appropriately. Additionally, Tomcik’s health was at risk due to the failure of a proper physical evaluation and the incredibly long delay in diagnosis and treatment. The negligence from Dr. Evans, along with the lack of medical attention sought out by Tomcik after she had first discovered the lump in her breast, may contribute to Tomcik’s life being in danger as well as the emotional anguish she may have felt during that time period. Overall, the incident of Tomcik’s expectations from the original physician and other employees at the institution not being met is an ethical issue that should be dealt with
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1; 57 S. Ct. 615; 81 L. Ed. 893; 1937 U.S.
It was finally time to head to gym class in the afternoon where we were instructed to take part of a physical test. This test would determine how fit or unfit we are based on a system that was implemented by those with greater authority, on which concluded that it was on such a scale society should be based on. So it was that afternoon that I preformed the tasks that were instructed on to me and my peers. I was able to completed them to my utmost potential which can be consider to be something not so distinctive. It was on this day that I was mocked by one my peers of my lack of ability to preform the instructed physical tasks, that was a no brainer to such a fit individual like himself. It
Ben is an 11-year-old boy who was referred to me by a teacher to assist with his reluctance to attend school. Ben has missed 20 days of school in 2 months and often goes to the nurse’s office and has left school due to feeling “sick”. Ben was check at by a pediatrician, and there are no medical problems that can explain his difficulties. Ben has a very close relationship with his mother, and sleeps in his mother’s bed every night. He avoids activities that would include him interacting with other kids his age, because of his separation anxiety from his mother. Ben’s mother showers with, dresses and undresses him.. She also grooms his hair because she claims it’s difficult to manage because of tangles. Ben is fully capable of self-care in areas
Workplace safety is a commonly used phrase that many do not consider until an accident occurs within the workplace. Throughout the U.S., workplace injuries occur on a daily basis. This has been an issue in the workforce for many years and is still an ongoing issue. Are there laws that protect employees from an unsafe work environment; what is the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); and how did the labor unions affect the law? In this paper these following questions will be addressed, as well as the background and driving force of OSHA.