ADJ13624079 · November 13, 2023

The applicant's injury during off-duty kickboxing was found not compensable because his belief that the activity was required by employment was not objectively reasonable, and the activity was not approved by the department manual.

From the decision · page 4Applicant filed a claim for an injury to his ankle. He sustained an injury while participating in an off-duty kickboxing class at a private gym in a city unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Police Department. The Defendant only became aware of this activity on receipt of the claim. Defendant denied the claim on the basis of Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) as an off-duty athletic unapproved activity by the department.

Applicant was injured during an off-duty kickboxing class not approved by the Los Angeles Police Department manual.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The department manual did not list kickboxing as an approved activity, and the applicant did not have a performance order authorizing the activity, leading to denial of compensability.

From the decision · page 6The Los Angeles Police Department manual (exhibit B) delineates certain injuries sustained during athletic activities are deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment subject to specific requirements and kickboxing is not one of them. The manual does allow self-defense courses if taken under the supervision of a training officer if requested and authorized. Applicant did not request the kickboxing class and it was not taken under the supervision of a training officer. If additional training is deemed necessary, the department can issue a performance order which they did not do for this activity.

Applicant's subjective belief that off-duty kickboxing was required by employment was not objectively reasonable and was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The arbitrator found the applicant's hearsay testimony insufficient to prove a requirement for outside training, favoring denial of the claim.

From the decision · page 4After hearing and reviewing the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the parties at the arbitration the undersigned found that the claim is barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9) as it failed to meet the second prong of the Ezzy vs. WCAB (1983)48ccc611 standard. Applicant's subjective belief that his voluntary off-duty kickboxing activity was a requirement of his employment with the Los Angeles Police Department was found not to be objectively reasonable.

Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252

Two-part test from Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) to determine compensability of off-duty recreational activity: subjective belief and objective reasonableness.

Applied to determine that applicant's belief was not objectively reasonable for kickboxing activity.

From the decision · page 2Turning to the merits, we will deny for the following reasons and for the reasons stated in the arbitrator's Report quoted below. In the seminal case of Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 611], the court fashioned a two-part test to determine whether off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity is compensable. According to the Ezzy test, "the test of `reasonable expectancy of employment'... consists of two elements: (1) whether the employee subjectively believes his or her participation in an activity is expected by the employer, and (2) whether that belief is objectively reasonable." (Ezzy, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 260.) The first part of the Ezzy test has been labeled a "lax standard" (Wilson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 369]), and thus most cases are decided on the second strand of the Ezzy test: whether the employee's belief that an activity is expected is objectively reasonable.

Applicant's credible testimony about subjective belief in encouragement to maintain fitness was outweighed by lack of corroboration and documentary evidence showing no formal requirement or approval for kickboxing.

From the decision · page 5Applicant's unrebutted testimony is based entirely upon self-serving, uncorroborated, multiple hearsay verbal statements from unidentified training officers twenty years ago as well as multiple hearsay statements from a former partner.