AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Officer Kevin Schultz drowned while saving a twelve-year-old boy who had fallen into the Rio Grande. At the time of the incident, Officer Schultz was off-duty, chaperoning a church youth group trip, and not in uniform, although his badge and department-issued pager and firearm were found on his body. The incident occurred outside the boundaries of the Pueblo of Pojoaque reservation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) concluded that Officer Schultz’s death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment because he was off-duty, outside his jurisdiction, and on a personal day trip at the time of the accident (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that Officer Schultz's death arose out of and within the course of his employment due to the unique nature of law enforcement duties, which may require off-duty officers to respond to emergencies (para 1).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that Officer Schultz’s death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, emphasizing his off-duty status, the personal nature of the trip, and the incident occurring outside his jurisdiction (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether Officer Kevin Schultz’s accidental death arose out of and within the course of his employment with the Pueblo of Pojoaque Tribal Police Department (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge, holding that Officer Schultz’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The court concluded that law enforcement officers may recover workers’ compensation benefits for off-duty injuries occurring in response to circumstances reasonably calling for police officer assistance. The court found a sufficient nexus between Officer Schultz’s actions in undertaking the rescue of a drowning child and the duties of his employment as a police officer. The court rejected the argument that Officer Schultz’s death was not in the course of his employment because he was acting outside the scope of his training in undertaking a swift-water rescue, emphasizing the emergency nature of the situation and the reasonable expectations of an on-duty officer faced with similar circumstances. The court also noted that Officer Schultz was not prohibited by Employer regulations from undertaking the rescue in his official capacity and that the regulations permitted off-duty and extra-jurisdictional action in serious circumstances requiring immediate action (paras 6-30).