County of Kern v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 621
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Kern County sought review of the WCAB’s ruling that a Sand Canyon Volunteer Fire Department (SCVFD) firefighter was a county employee for workers’ compensation under Labor Code §3361.1.
- SCVFD is a 32-member unpaid volunteer department serving Sand Canyon; it is a nonprofit, trains under state law, and relied on Kern for equipment and water supply support.
- A June 19, 2007 Donation Agreement funded SCVFD infrastructure and equipment, while SCVFD acknowledged it was an independent contractor and would secure its own workers’ compensation; SCVFD did not obtain a workers’ compensation policy.
- Kern later disputed coverage, indicating the county would only provide coverage if SCVFD dissolved and joined Kern’s reserve firefighters program under KCFD control.
- Petersen injured in 2007 and 2008; the WCJ found Petersen a statutory employee of Kern but left undecided whether the Donation Agreement or SCVFD’s lack of coverage affected the industrial nature of injuries; WCAB denied reconsideration.
- This court affirms the WCAB and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3361 applies when a volunteer fire department has official recognition and government support. | Kern argues recognition and support requirements are not met without formal local resolutions. | WCAB’s interpretation allows broader recognition by state/federal entities and practical acknowledgment. | Yes; §3361 applies if there is official recognition and support, by either local or higher government. |
| Whether official recognition may come from entities beyond the local government where the department is located. | Kern contends recognition must come from the local governing body. | Recognitions can come from state or federal acknowledgment when appropriate. | Yes; official recognition may derive from non-local government entities. |
| Whether Kern provided full or partial support to SCVFD under §3361. | Kern argues there was no ongoing or explicit financial support. | Support can be non-financial and may include funding, equipment, and governance actions. | Yes; the Donation Agreement, use of equipment, and biannual recertification constitute full/partial support. |
| Whether Petersen was an employee of Kern for workers’ compensation purposes under §3361. | Kern disputes coverage liability under §3361. | Court should apply §3361 to treat Petersen as a statutory employee of Kern. | Yes; substantial evidence supports Petersen as a statutory employee under §3361. |
| Whether remand for further proceedings is appropriate. | N/A | N/A | Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Machado v. Hulsman, 119 Cal.App.3d 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (broad interpretation of §3361 to extend workers’ comp coverage to volunteers)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2001) (interpretation of legislative language and last antecedent rule in statutory construction)
- Marsh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 130 Cal.App.4th 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (caution against altering statutory interpretation; purposive construction)
- LeVesque v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 1 Cal.3d 627 (Cal. 1970) (substantial evidence standard and review framework)
- Keulen v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 66 Cal.App.4th 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (scope of appellate review for WCAB determinations)
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent guiding agency decisions)
- S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (test for employee status and scope of workers’ compensation coverage)
- Claxton v. Waters, 34 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (liberal construction in workers’ compensation context)