ADJ12479931 · March 26, 2024

The WCJ and WCAB found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the applicant was required to use her personal vehicle to travel between fields and transport tools, and the accident occurred during a left turn into the place of employment, fitting the special risk and required vehicle exceptions to the going and coming rule.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision (F&O) issued on May 21, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In the F&O, the WCJ found that applicant's injury on April 23, 2019 arose out of and was in the course of her employment (AOE/COE) with defendant and was not barred by the going and coming rule.

Applicant was required to use her personal vehicle to travel between fields and transport tools for work.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 2They drove from field to field throughout their workday. (Id. at p. 6, lines 22-24.) They used their own vehicle; the employer did not offer transportation between fields. (Id. at p. 6, line 25, through p. 7, line 5.) They would transport tools used on the job in their vehicle as they moved from field to field. (Id. at p. 7, line 25, through p. 8, line 7.) Applicant would use her own shears and harness. (Id. at p. 13, line 23, through p. 14, line 2.) She would need shears to do her job and the employer did not provide them. (Id. at p. 14, lines 3-14.)

Applicant was injured in an auto accident while making a left turn into the place of employment adjacent to the highway.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact triggered the special risk exception to the going and coming rule, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained an injury as part of an auto accident that occurred on April 23, 2019. (Joint Exhibit 101, CHP Traffic Collision Report, April 23, 2019.) Applicant was on a highway and slowing down to make a left-hand turn. (Id. at p. 2.) It was dawn, around 5:45AM and everyone's headlights were on. (Id. at p. 3.) Applicant's vehicle was rear-ended, pushing it into the oncoming lane of traffic where it collided head-on with a big-rig truck. (Id. at p. 4.) Applicant's husband was driving the car. (Id. at p. 9.) He died of his injuries after being transported to the hospital. Applicant sustained significant injuries and had to be extricated from the car using the jaws of life. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Report of QME Dinesh Sharma, M.D., November 20, 2020, p. 6.)

Provided medical report documenting applicant's significant injuries from the auto accident.

From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained an injury as part of an auto accident that occurred on April 23, 2019. (Joint Exhibit 101, CHP Traffic Collision Report, April 23, 2019.) Applicant was on a highway and slowing down to make a left-hand turn. (Id. at p. 2.) It was dawn, around 5:45AM and everyone's headlights were on. (Id. at p. 3.) Applicant's vehicle was rear-ended, pushing it into the oncoming lane of traffic where it collided head-on with a big-rig truck. (Id. at p. 4.) Applicant's husband was driving the car. (Id. at p. 9.) He died of his injuries after being transported to the hospital. Applicant sustained significant injuries and had to be extricated from the car using the jaws of life. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Report of QME Dinesh Sharma, M.D., November 20, 2020, p. 6.)

Labor Code § 3600(a)(2); Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150; Smith v. WCAB (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 814; Parks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 585; Greydanus v. I.A.C. (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 490

Going and coming rule and its exceptions including the required vehicle and special risk exceptions.

Applied to determine compensability of injury occurring during commute and use of personal vehicle for work duties.

From the decision · page 3The "going and coming rule" ordinarily makes non-compensable an injury sustained during a normal commute to or from work by an employee who has a fixed place of work and fixed work hours. (Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [104 Cal. Rptr. 456, 501 P.2d 1176, 37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) The going and coming rule essentially derives from the fact that, under California law, a condition of compensation is that the employee must be "performing service" to the employer at the time of injury and must be "acting within the course of his or her employment." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(2).) The courts have concluded that, generally, an employee is not rendering any service to the employer, and the employment relationship is suspended, from the time the employee leaves his work to go home until he resumes his work. (Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345, 352 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 626].) However, there are several exceptions to the `going and coming' rule.

Applicant's testimony and CHP Traffic Collision Report documenting the accident and circumstances of injury.

From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained an injury as part of an auto accident that occurred on April 23, 2019. (Joint Exhibit 101, CHP Traffic Collision Report, April 23, 2019.) Applicant was on a highway and slowing down to make a left-hand turn. (Id. at p. 2.) It was dawn, around 5:45AM and everyone's headlights were on. (Id. at p. 3.) Applicant's vehicle was rear-ended, pushing it into the oncoming lane of traffic where it collided head-on with a big-rig truck. (Id. at p. 4.) Applicant's husband was driving the car. (Id. at p. 9.) He died of his injuries after being transported to the hospital. Applicant sustained significant injuries and had to be extricated from the car using the jaws of life. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Report of QME Dinesh Sharma, M.D., November 20, 2020, p. 6.)