 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davenport v. City and County of Honolulu12/30/2002
requiring approval of Courser's curriculum as a condition of the promotion. Id. at 419-20. Although not expressly enumerating the factors to be balanced, this court has implemented a similar totality of the circumstances test, taking into account the benefit to the employer and the employer's acquiescence in the activity. In Pacheco v. Orchids of Hawaii, 54 Haw. 166, 502 P.2d 1399 (1972), we held that cashing a paycheck during an authorized coffee break is incidental to employment because "it serves the dual function of providing an employee a brief respite from his job as well as affording him an opportunity to tend to matters of a personal nature." Id. at 69, 502 P.2d at 1401. Thus, the employer derives a benefit because "a refreshed employee is a more productive one." Id.
We noted in Tate, after considering the totality of the circumstances, that personal errands are generally not, by their nature, work-related. Tate, 77 Hawaii at 104, 881 P.2d at 1250 (citing Heverly v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd., 578 A.2d 575, 577 (Pa. 1990)). In Pacheco, however, we held that personal errands can be compensable if there is a benefit to the employer and the personal errand is authorized by the employer. Pacheco, 54 Haw. 166, 502 P.2d 1399. If a personal errand, such as cashing a paycheck during an authorized coffee break, is work-related, we see no reason why, under the same analysis, an examination taken to advance within the workplace, encouraged and endorsed by the employer, is not also work-related.
The California Court of Appeals took the same position in Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 60 Cal. App. 2d 744 (1967). In Department of Water, a water meter reader applied for the position of cable splicer in a separate division of the department, which was unrelated to the work of a meter reader. The employee was injured while participating in a test conducted by the city civil service commission as part of the application process for the position of cable splicer, while on his own time and at his own expense. Yet, the court held that the injury was compensable because "the employee was injured on premises controlled by the employer while he was engaged, not in recreational activity, but in an activity directed and controlled by the employer in the furtherance of the employer's business." Id. at 747. In so holding, the court noted that
f there is any reasonable doubt as to whether such activity was contemplated by the employment or whether the injuries were sustained in the course of employment, such doubt should be resolved in favor of compensation coverage in view of the state's policy of liberal construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the employee's favor. Id.
In accordance with our policy of liberally construing HRS chapter 386, we agree with the Department of Water court and hold that Davenport's January 1994 injury is compensable. Although Davenport was not physically injured while taking the test, he sustained psychological injuries caused by his dissatisfaction with the process for ranking individuals and the overall grievance and promotion processes. Like the employee in Department of Water, Davenport took an examination, administered by the state, on state property, and for the benefit of the employer. Undoubtedly, the Department encourages its employees to advance within the ranks of the Department by taking the promotional examination to be placed on the list of eligibles for FFII and FFIII positions. Moreover, the Department derives a substantial benefit from the advancement of its own employees rather than having to select and train individuals from outside the Department. Thus, if Daven
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|