ADJ9098975 · May 16, 2025

Applicant was found to be concurrently employed as a Peace Officer under section 3362.5 during the motocross demonstration, and the County failed to rebut the presumption of employment or prove exclusion under section 3352(a)(9). The WCJ's finding that applicant was a professional athlete was reversed to Peace Officer classification.

From the decision · page 16Finding of Fact, substitute new Findings of Fact, that find that applicant was concurrently employed as a Peace Officer, Occupational Group Number 490, by the County and the Reserve Association on May 4, 2013 while performing in a motocross demonstration at the 2013 Stampede Days and defer all remaining issues.

Applicant was a deputized reserve officer with the Sheriff's Department at the time of injury

Favours Applicant prevailed

Establishes applicant's status as an employee under section 3362.5

From the decision · page 13First, the evidence shows that applicant was a deputized reserve officer with the Sheriff's Department and that she served in this capacity between 1999 and 2018; because the motocross demonstration was held in 2013, applicant was clearly a reserve deputy at the time of her injury. (MOH/SOE, March 11, 2020, p. 3.) The evidence also shows that applicant was assigned "specific police functions" as a reserve deputy. Applicant testified that her reserve duties were "the same as a regular deputy sheriff, but she was not paid." (MOH/SOE, March 11, 2020, p. 3.) Additionally, as a reserve deputy, she had to complete police academy training, obtain a firearm certification, and be POST-compliant. Applicant was also issued a metal badge and a department firearm and was authorized to drive a Metro patrol vehicle or go on patrol with a regular deputy. (MOH/SOE, March 11, 2020, p. 3; App. Exh. 5, pp. 3-4, 6.) The WCAB has consistently found that police

Applicant was performing a motocross demonstration at the request of the County and Reserve Association

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports presumption of employment under sections 3351 and 3357

From the decision · page 9We conclude that this evidence demonstrates that, while performing in the motocross demonstration on May 4, 2013, applicant was acting in service of the County and the Reserve Association, such that the presumption of employment was established under sections 3351 and 3357.

Applicant received remuneration in the form of department-issued uniforms and training

Favours Applicant prevailed

Negates exclusion under section 3352(a)(9) which excludes unpaid volunteers without remuneration

From the decision · page 11We also conclude that department-issued uniforms constitute remuneration outside the scope of section 3352(a)(9). During trial, applicant testified that, as a reserve deputy, she was issued various department uniforms, including a "Class C" off-road uniform, which she wore during the motocross demonstration. (MOH/SOE, March 11, 2020, p. 6.) Like the Court in Barragan, we believe that, had the Legislature intended to add uniforms to the types of excluded remuneration in section 3352(a)(9), it knew how to do so. In fact, uniforms are among the types

Applicant was not employed as a professional athlete but as a Peace Officer, Occupational Group Number 490

Favours Applicant prevailed

Corrects occupational classification for workers' compensation purposes

From the decision · page 16Finding of Fact, substitute new Findings of Fact, that find that applicant was concurrently employed as a Peace Officer, Occupational Group Number 490, by the County and the Reserve Association on May 4, 2013 while performing in a motocross demonstration at the 2013 Stampede Days and defer all remaining issues.

Labor Code sections 3351, 3357

Presumption of employment under Labor Code sections 3351 and 3357

Applicant established presumption of employment; burden shifted to County to rebut

From the decision · page 8On May 18, 2020, the WCJ issued the Finding. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that applicant established the presumption of employment under Labor Code sections 3351 and 3357,2 and that the County failed to rebut the presumption using the public agency volunteer exclusion set forth in section 3352(a)(9). The WCJ also stated that:

Labor Code section 3352(a)(9)

Exclusion of volunteers under Labor Code section 3352(a)(9)

County failed to prove applicant was excluded as a volunteer under this section

From the decision · page 8On May 18, 2020, the WCJ issued the Finding. In his Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that applicant established the presumption of employment under Labor Code sections 3351 and 3357,2 and that the County failed to rebut the presumption using the public agency volunteer exclusion set forth in section 3352(a)(9). The WCJ also stated that:

Labor Code section 3362.5

Employee status under Labor Code section 3362.5 for reserve deputies

Applicant was deemed an employee under this section during the motocross demonstration

From the decision · page 13Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports a finding that applicant was an employee under section 3362.5 during the May 4, 2013 motocross demonstration. (Lab. Code, § 5952; Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 280-281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

Statement of Sergeant Royce Haislip about reserve deputy training requirements and duties

From the decision · page 5The WCJ also admitted a statement of Sergeant Royce Haislip, the Sheriff's Department Volunteer Reserve Coordinator. (App. Exh. 5, Statement of Sergeant Royce Haislip, October 8, 2013.) Sergeant Haislip testified that departmental policy requires reserve deputies to undergo mandatory training and perform a designated number of volunteer hours to maintain their reserve "status" and remain in "good standing" within the Department. Sergeant Haislip testified, in part:

Applicant's testimony about her reserve deputy status, training, duties, and uniform

From the decision · page 2On March 11, 2020, the matter proceeded to trial on the sole issue of employment. According to the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence issued at trial, applicant testified as follows:

Testimony of Reserve Association member about Stampede Days as a fundraising event benefiting the Sheriff's Department

From the decision · page 5Byron Kip Williamson, a Reserve Association member for over 20 years, also testified regarding Stampede Days as follows:

Applicant wore department-issued uniform and badge during motocross demonstration

From the decision · page 4The motorcycle she was riding at the event is one she owns, and it is a pink motorcycle. She was wearing her uniform under the protective gear for motocross riding, which included goggles, boots, knee pads, and other protective gear. Under the protective gear, she was wearing a T-shirt and black Spandex pants, which was the uniform for the event. As a reserve deputy sheriff, she had uniforms for bike patrol, for off-road patrol, which was Class C with no safety gear. As a committee member for the Stampede Days event, she wore a T-shirt that had a "Cops and Cowboys" logo on it. The committee was made up of reserve deputies and regular deputies, and they wore the T-shirts, carried their guns, and wore badges. Some of the deputies were wearing plain clothes but had their weapons and badges. There were some regular deputies in uniform, which was the standard pants, badges, and a duty holster. Applicant did not carry her firearm during the motocross demonstration. It was locked in her vehicle at that time. The reserve deputy sheriffs who were in uniform were wearing there (sic) khaki pants, tan shirt with patches, their duty belts, and boots.