Key Takeaway: Reese Decision Creates Broader Liability Exposure for Public Entities
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s recent panel decision in Reese v. County of Kern significantly broadens when public entities may be liable for workers’ compensation coverage for volunteer reserve deputies. This decision should prompt immediate review of volunteer programs and coverage elections by public entity risk managers.
Case Background
Reserve Deputy Shelly Reese sustained injuries during a motocross demonstration at the 2013 Stampede Days fundraising event while serving as a volunteer reserve deputy for Kern County Sheriff’s Department. The event was a joint fundraiser organized by the Reserve Association and sanctioned by the Sheriff’s Department, with proceeds used to purchase equipment and training for reserve deputies.
Reese was performing as the lead rider in the demonstration when she crashed while exiting the rodeo arena, sustaining injuries to her shoulder, knee, and lower extremities. The WCJ initially found coverage under Occupational Group Number 590 (professional athlete), but the WCAB panel reversed and found coverage under Occupational Group Number 490 (peace officer).
WCAB’s Legal Analysis
Employment Presumption Under Labor Code Sections 3351 and 3357
The WCAB determined that Reese established the presumption of employment because she was “in service” to both the County and Reserve Association during the demonstration. Key factors included:
- Mandatory participation in Stampede Days as part of reserve duties
- Department authorization for the motocross demonstration
- Departmental supervision through Sergeant Leonard during practice sessions
- Fundraising benefit to the Sheriff’s Department through equipment and training purchases
Once the employment presumption was established, the burden shifted to the County to prove Reese was either an independent contractor or excluded from coverage.
Failure to Establish Section 3352(a)(9) Volunteer Exclusion
The County argued Reese fell under the volunteer exclusion in Labor Code Section 3352(a)(9), which excludes volunteers who receive no remuneration beyond meals, transportation, lodging, or incidental expense reimbursement.
The WCAB rejected this defense, finding Reese received sufficient “remuneration” in multiple forms:
- Training and instruction from departmental personnel
- Department-issued uniforms and protective gear
- Equipment and badges provided by the department
Citing Barragan v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., the WCAB emphasized that remuneration need not be monetary and that training/instruction constitutes sufficient consideration to defeat the volunteer exclusion. The decision reinforces that uniforms are remuneration since the Legislature specifically excluded uniforms from other volunteer categories but not Section 3352(a)(9).
Coverage Under Labor Code Section 3362.5
Section 3362.5 provides that deputized reserve officers assigned specific police functions are employees while performing peace officer duties. The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting employee status:
- Reese was properly deputized and POST-certified
- She performed same duties as regular deputies including patrol functions
- She possessed department badge, firearm, and patrol vehicle access
- The motocross demonstration was authorized department service
Critically, the WCAB held that performing at a departmentally-authorized event constitutes “peace officer duties” even when not traditional law enforcement activities.
Practical Implications for Public Entity Risk Management
Immediate Risk Assessment Actions
1. Review All Volunteer Programs
Public entities should immediately audit volunteer activities to identify potential exposure. The Reese decision suggests coverage may extend beyond traditional law enforcement to any volunteer service that:
- Is mandatory or department-authorized
- Involves department training, uniforms, or equipment
- Benefits the public entity
2. Evaluate Current Coverage Elections
Under Labor Code Section 3363.5, public entities can elect workers’ compensation coverage for volunteers through board resolution. Risk managers must weigh:
- Coverage costs versus civil litigation exposure for uninsured volunteers
- Exclusive remedy protection limiting volunteer lawsuits
- Premium impact on loss ratios and future contributions
Expanded Liability Exposure
The decision creates broader exposure because it:
- Expands “remuneration” definition to include non-monetary benefits like training and uniforms
- Broadens “peace officer duties” beyond traditional law enforcement to authorized departmental activities
- Establishes precedent that mandatory volunteer events may create employment relationships
Risk Mitigation Strategies
1. Documentation and Policies
- Create clear volunteer agreements specifying independent contractor status
- Establish policies limiting department-provided equipment and training
- Document voluntary versus mandatory nature of activities
2. Coverage Decision Framework
Consider adopting volunteer coverage based on:
- High-risk activities (operating vehicles, using equipment, public contact)
- Department integration level (uniforms, badges, supervision)
- Mandatory participation requirements
3. Alternative Risk Management
For entities declining coverage election:
- Secure adequate general liability coverage for volunteer activities
- Implement comprehensive safety training and equipment protocols
- Consider volunteer accident insurance policies
Implications for Reserve Deputy Programs
Section 3362.5 Creates Automatic Coverage
Unlike general volunteers requiring board resolution, Section 3362.5 creates automatic coverage for deputized reserves performing peace officer functions. The Reese decision expands what constitutes “peace officer duties” to include:
- Authorized departmental demonstrations or events
- Activities performed in uniform with department equipment
- Service benefiting the law enforcement mission
Occupational Group Classifications
The WCAB’s assignment of Group 490 (peace officer) rather than 590 (professional athlete) has significant implications for permanent disability ratings and benefits calculations. Risk managers should expect higher claim costs for reserve deputy injuries.
Conclusion
The Reese decision represents a significant expansion of workers’ compensation liability for public entities using volunteers. Risk managers must immediately assess current volunteer programs, review coverage elections, and implement appropriate risk mitigation strategies. The decision’s broad interpretation of “remuneration” and “peace officer duties” creates exposure beyond traditional employment relationships.
About Yrulegui & Roberts
Yrulegui & Roberts is a premier California workers’ compensation defense law firm specializing in public entity representation. With decades of combined experience defending counties, cities, school districts, and special districts throughout California, our attorneys provide strategic counsel on complex coverage issues, volunteer liability exposure, and risk management solutions. We stay at the forefront of evolving workers’ compensation law to protect our public entity clients from emerging liability trends like those highlighted in the Reese decision.
Contact us today to discuss how recent panel decisions may impact your entity’s volunteer programs and coverage strategies. Our proactive approach helps public agencies navigate the changing legal landscape while minimizing exposure and controlling costs.
