Not Work-Related : Court Rules Against Pay to Injured Deputy

A sheriff’s deputy who was injured during an impromptu demonstration of night-stick handling for a colleague does not qualify for disability payments because the injury was not work-related, a state appellate court ruled Thursday.

Anthony Di Angelo, 29, had been awarded partial permanent disability benefits for an injury to his knee in the 1983 incident, which occurred while he was off duty, on private property and out of uniform.

Before the appeal, the decision meant that Di Angelo was entitled to reimbursement for $1,999 in medical expenses and disability pay of $130 per week, up to a total of $1,560.

“It wasn’t the dollar amount that we were arguing over,” said James J. McDermott, lawyer for the workers compensation administered by Orange County.

“My client was concerned that if it (Di Angelo’s injury) was found to be compensable when it occurred off duty and these guys are doing nothing connected with their work, how far are they going to extend it?”

Not Authorized for Use

After finishing work at midnight at the Orange County Jail, Di Angelo and two other officers changed clothes and walked to their cars. Their conversation turned to night sticks, in particular a baton with a looped handle that was not authorized for use by officers of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.

One deputy had one of the batons, and Di Angelo offered to show him how to use it.

“During the demonstration (Di Angelo) twisted his right knee sustaining the injury,” according to the appellate court opinion. Di Angelo missed work for 11 days in 1983 because of the injury.

A workers compensation judge accepted the deputy’s argument that the injury arose from his official duties and fixed his disability at 4%. The county, which administers its own workers compensation fund, appealed.

The Court of Appeal Thursday rejected Di Angelo’s claim that he suffered the twisted knee during a demonstration “performed for the employer’s benefit.”

“Di Angelo is an honest, straightforward guy,” McDermott said. “It was an issue as to how far they’re going to extend coverage for a group of officers.”