Larkin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 62 Cal. 4th 152

John Larkin, a regularly sworn, salaried Marysville police officer, was injured in the line of duty on November 21, 2008 and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
A WCJ found Larkin entitled to benefits but not to the maximum indemnity levels under Labor Code § 4458.2; WCJ calculated weekly earnings at $1,008.47 and denied the § 4458.2 enhancement.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) denied reconsideration, agreeing § 4458.2 and § 3362 do not apply to regularly sworn, salaried officers.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning §§ 4458.2 and 3362 were enacted to protect volunteers and to incentivize volunteer service; salaried officers already qualify as employees under § 3351.
The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 4458.2 extends maximum indemnity levels to regularly sworn, salaried peace officers and affirmed the Court of Appeal and Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Labor Code § 4458.2’s "maximum indemnity" provision applies to regularly sworn, salaried peace officers	Larkin: § 4458.2’s text is broad and, after the 1989 removal of the word "volunteer," was intended to cover all active peace officers, including salaried ones	City of Marysville/Board: § 4458.2 cross-references § 3362; § 3362 was enacted to deem volunteer officers employees and does not apply to regularly sworn, salaried officers who are already employees under § 3351	Held: § 4458.2 does not extend maximum indemnity levels to regularly sworn, salaried peace officers; it targets volunteers (deference given to Board’s interpretation)

Meredith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 19 Cal.3d 777 (1977) (upholding fictitious-earnings approach to provide maximum indemnity for volunteer firefighters)
Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1313 (2007) (describing deference owed to Board interpretations of workers’ compensation statutes)
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (1998) (agency statutory interpretations are contextually persuasive depending on supporting factors)
Honeywell v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 35 Cal.4th 24 (2005) (court retains ultimate responsibility to interpret statutes despite agency expertise)
Nickelsberg v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 54 Cal.3d 288 (1991) (section 3202’s liberal-construction rule cannot override overall statutory framework)
Boyd v. Santa Ana, 6 Cal.3d 393 (1971) (section 4853 permits workers’ compensation benefits after paid leave under section 4850 expires)