In Larson v. Moraga Orinda Fire Dist. (2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 287, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) concluded that a firefighter’s off-duty trail running injury was compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9). Despite the employer’s argument that the injury fell under the “voluntary participation” bar for off-duty recreational activities, the WCAB found that the firefighter’s off-duty fitness regimen was a “reasonable expectancy” of his employment. Below, we discuss the facts, legal analysis, and key takeaways for claims adjusters.
Background and Key Facts
The applicant, a firefighter/engineer-paramedic, was injured while running on Mount Burdell during his personal time. He testified that trail running best prepared him for steep, rugged terrain—conditions he commonly faced fighting wildfires. Although the fire district provided on-duty workout time and facilities, the applicant and his supervisor both testified that there was an “unwritten rule” expecting firefighters to remain in top physical shape, which necessarily meant additional training off-duty.
Notably, another firefighter previously sustained an off-duty gym injury and was allowed workers’ compensation coverage. This suggested that injuries sustained during routine off-duty conditioning could be deemed part of the job’s fitness expectations.
Legal Issue: Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)
Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) generally bars compensability for injuries arising out of “voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties.” However, the law provides an exception if the off-duty activity is “a reasonable expectancy of, or is expressly or impliedly required by, the employment.”
Two-Prong “Ezzy” Test
When determining whether an off-duty activity meets the “reasonable expectancy” standard, the courts look to Ezzy v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983). Under Ezzy, the employee must establish:
- A subjective belief that the employer expected participation in the off-duty activity.
- That this belief was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
WCAB’s Analysis
- Subjective Belief
The applicant believed, based on department culture, his wildfire experience, and statements from superiors, that off-duty training was expected for maintaining his readiness. He had previous employment with agencies that also encouraged trail running for endurance, reinforcing that belief. - Objective Reasonableness
- The firefighter’s supervisor confirmed that optimal fitness could not be achieved through on-duty exercise alone and that off-duty workouts were routine.
- A coworker’s earlier off-duty gym injury had been accepted for workers’ compensation, which signaled the employer’s implicit approval of off-duty fitness activities.
- The department derived a clear benefit from the applicant’s off-duty training, given the physically demanding nature of firefighting.
Because the applicant satisfied both the subjective and objective components of the Ezzy test, the WCAB concluded the exception under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) applied, rendering the injury compensable.
Takeaways for Claims Adjusters
- Evaluate Workplace Culture and History
Even if an employer’s written policy does not mandate off-duty exercise, an informal culture encouraging high-level fitness can create an implied requirement. - Consistency is Key
When an employer or its administrator has previously accepted similar off-duty injuries, denying a comparable claim may be difficult to justify. - Employer Benefit
Courts will look for a direct benefit to the employer (e.g., better physical readiness) in determining the objective reasonableness of an employee’s belief. - Clear, Written Policies
Employers should consider drafting explicit policies clarifying whether certain off-duty activities are covered and consistently communicate and enforce those policies.
Legal Disclaimer
This blog post provides general information and should not be construed as legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Each case is unique, and specific outcomes depend on the individual facts and circumstances. For personalized advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Need Workers’ Compensation Defense Assistance?
Our firm stays current on California workers’ compensation developments and offers strategic guidance to help claims adjusters navigate complex issues like off-duty injury claims. Visit www.rjylaw.com for more information on our defense services, to connect with our experienced attorneys, and to stay ahead of emerging trends in workers’ compensation. Let us help you protect your organization’s interests and effectively manage claims.
