What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration denied by the WCAB panel, adopting and incorporating the WCJ's report and findings.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ and WCAB found the injury was within the special risk exception to the going and coming rule because the applicant was waiting for employer-provided transportation and engaged in reasonable activities within the field of risk created by the employment.
From the decision · page 2Shortly before the scheduled end of the lunch break at 3:00 a.m., an automobile collided into the bus stop where Gus, Giovanni, and the Applicant were waiting. (MOE/SOE Dec 5, 2023, pg. 6, lines 3; 8-10.) As a result of this incident, the Applicant alleged to have sustained injuries to his legs, head, neck, hips, left hand, left middle finger, left ring finger, right knee, right ankle, left ear, vision, psyche, and in the form of loss of consciousness and depression. (Id., pg. 2, lines 5-9.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was made to wait several hours for employer-provided transportation after clocking out early due to illness.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This waiting created a field of risk for the applicant's injury, making it compensable under the special risk exception.
From the decision · page 1The Applicant reported to work on December 8, 2021 at or around the start of his shift at 10:00 p.m. (Id., at pg. 5 lines, 13-14.) On this day, the Applicant used the employer-provided transportation to get to work. However, he was feeling sick that day, and requested to clock out early. (Ibid.) The Applicant clocked out at or around 12:17 a.m. on December 9, 2021, and he physically exited the Home Chef facility.
Applicant engaged in reasonable activities such as purchasing snacks and visiting a friend at a nearby bus stop within the field of risk while waiting for transportation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These activities were considered reasonably contemplated by the employment and fell within the personal convenience doctrine, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 2At around 2:00 a.m., the Applicant's co-worker/friend, Gus, emerged from the Home Chef facility for the scheduled lunch break. (Id., at pg. 5, lines 22-23; pg. 6, line 15.) The Applicant wanted to purchase snacks since he was going to have to wait for the bus. (Id., at pg. 6, lines 15-16.) Gus and the Applicant walked together to a local AM/PM liquor store to purchase snacks. (Id., at pg. 6, lines 15-16.) While walking back, Gus and the Applicant encountered another friend, Giovanni, who was sitting down at a public bus stop separate from the seating area in front of the Home Chef facility. (Id., at pg. 6, lines 18-20.) Gus and the Applicant joined Giovanni at this public bus stop. (Ibid.) This bus stop was located at or around 1281 Tippecanoe Avenue, San Bernardino, California 92408. (Defendant's Exhibit A.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 155; Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559; Fitzgerald v. Hamerslag Equipment (1977) 42 Cal.Comp.Cases 773
Going and coming rule with special risk and personal convenience exceptions favoring employee compensation.
The WCJ and WCAB applied these exceptions to find the injury compensable despite the going and coming rule.
From the decision · page 6into. The WCJ stated that this conclusion must follow, in light of the well-established principle that any reasonable doubt as to the applicability of the going and coming doctrine must be resolved in the employee's favor. (Opinion on Decision, pp. 9-10, citing Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Hinojosa) (1972) 8 Cal.3d 155, 156 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734]; see also Lab. Code, § 3202.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant testified he was made to wait several hours for employer-provided transportation and engaged in reasonable activities such as purchasing snacks and visiting a friend at a nearby bus stop within the field of risk.
From the decision · page 2At around 2:00 a.m., the Applicant's co-worker/friend, Gus, emerged from the Home Chef facility for the scheduled lunch break. (Id., at pg. 5, lines 22-23; pg. 6, line 15.) The Applicant wanted to purchase snacks since he was going to have to wait for the bus. (Id., at pg. 6, lines 15-16.) Gus and the Applicant walked together to a local AM/PM liquor store to purchase snacks. (Id., at pg. 6, lines 15-16.) While walking back, Gus and the Applicant encountered another friend, Giovanni, who was sitting down at a public bus stop separate from the seating area in front of the Home Chef facility. (Id., at pg. 6, lines 18-20.) Gus and the Applicant joined Giovanni at this public bus stop. (Ibid.) This bus stop was located at or around 1281 Tippecanoe Avenue, San Bernardino, California 92408. (Defendant's Exhibit A.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.