Gritchen v. Collier (May 7, 2001)
* Court: Ninth Circuit
* Plaintiff: Long Beach Police Officer
*Plaintiff's LDF Attorney: LDF Panel Attorney Jim Trott and
Larry Roberts
* Amicus Adversarier: ACLU, California Anti-Slapp Project, California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Criminal Defense Bar Association, Ella
Baker Center for Human Rights, First Amendment Project, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Protection adn Advocacy, Inc.,
California Women's Law Center, and Individual Civil Rights Attorneys
* Federal District Court Decision: Against plaintiff
* Ninth Circuit Decision: in favor or plaintiff
* Issues: Civil Code 47.5, police officer defamation suits, First
Amendment
Gritchen
San
Diego Police Officer Stephen Molnar was subpoenaed to attend court on
one of his cases on his day off.
*
While driving his personal car to court, he was injured in an
accident.
*
Molnar submitted a workers compensation claim with the City; it denied
it on the basis of the “going and coming” rule.
*
The WCAB ruled in Molnar’s favor on the basis that he was on a
“special mission”.
*
The appellate court sided with the City.
San Diego Analysis
*
The general workers compensation rule is the “going and coming”
rule, namely, that injuries sustained while commuting are not within the
scope of employment.
*
If, however, your employer tells you to travel somewhere to perform your
job, then that is a special mission that is within the scope of
employment.
*
One requirement of the “special mission” rule is that it not involve
the employee’s routine duties.
*
The appellate court found that “it is an integral part of a San Diego
patrol officer’s duties to testify, if subpoenaed to do so, in a
proceeding arising out of his or her patrol duties” and that officers
testified twice a month. This
was not “special”, according to the court.
