What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied by the Appeals Board on July 25, 2025.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on April 15, 2025, which found injury AOE/COE and not barred by the going and coming rule; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration.
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's findings that the injury was AOE/COE and not barred by the going and coming rule under the special risk exception are supported by substantial evidence, including applicant's routine exposure to the risks of navigating World Way at LAX, which is a high-traffic environment shared by employees and the public, and the Appeals Board defers to the WCJ's factual findings.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) on July 10, 2023, while employed as a ground operations worker by JetBlue Airways Corporation at Los Angeles Airport (LAX); that applicant's injury was not barred by the going and coming rule based on the special risk exception to that rule; and that all other pending issues, including parts of body injured, remain bifurcated and off-calendar. The WCJ ordered this matter off calendar for further discovery.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was injured on July 10, 2023, while getting into his girlfriend's car on the upper level of World Way outside Terminal 5 at LAX, just minutes after clocking out from work.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supports the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and falls within the special risk exception to the going and coming rule because the location and timing exposed the applicant to risks greater than those common to the public.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) on July 10, 2023, while employed as a ground operations worker by JetBlue Airways Corporation at Los Angeles Airport (LAX); that applicant's injury was not barred by the going and coming rule based on the special risk exception to that rule; and that all other pending issues, including parts of body injured, remain bifurcated and off-calendar. The WCJ ordered this matter off calendar for further discovery.
Applicant routinely navigated World Way at LAX to get to and from work, exposing him to a high-traffic environment shared with the public but with greater frequency and risk.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Routine exposure to this environment supports the special risk exception, as the applicant faced risks quantitatively greater than those common to the public, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 5It is undisputed that World Way consists of an upper and lower roadway, one for arrivals (upper) and one for departures (lower), and is used for public traffic to access all airport terminals which support more than 50 airlines. (Transcript of Record, January 29, 2025, testimony of Deputy Executive Director of Commercial Development at Los Angeles World Airports, David Jones, at pp. 6, 18, Declaration of David Jones, Joint Exh. X, 3-5, 8.) World Way is also used by employees of airlines, government agencies, air travel support companies, and concessions including dining and shops to access their jobsites at the airport; by multiple shuttles for both employees and customers of the airport, including rental car and hotel shuttles; the Metro Connector bus; and, Uber rideshare drop-off and pick-up. (Ibid.; Transcript of Record, December 9, 2024, applicant testimony, at p. 20.) Defendant does not dispute in its Petition for Reconsideration that JetBlue employees arrive and depart for shifts with JetBlue from Terminal 5, and that no matter how they chose to do so, including taking the shuttle to/from the employee parking lot, they would necessarily have to navigate along and/or across World Way. (Transcript of Record, December 9, 2024, pp. 9-14, 18-20, 22-24, 32-35, 37.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Chairez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595
The special risk exception to the going and coming rule applies when the employment creates a risk greater than that common to the public, including risks encountered on the employer's premises or necessary means of access or egress.
The Board applied this standard to find that the applicant's injury was not barred by the going and coming rule because he was exposed to a special risk navigating World Way at LAX.
From the decision · page 3As the court stated in Pacific Indem. Co., supra: "... if the employment creates a special risk, an employee is entitled to compensation for injuries sustained within the field of that risk. The employee may be subject to such a risk as soon as he enters the employer's premises, or the necessary means of access [or egress] thereto, even when the latter is not under the employer's control or management. (Freire v. Matson Navigation Co., supra, and cases cited therein.)" (28 Cal.2d 329 at p. 336.) (Italics added.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony about his routine exposure to the risks of navigating World Way at LAX, including being picked up on the upper level outside Terminal 5 multiple times.
From the decision · page 6Therefore, every single time applicant went to work he was exposed to the risks associated with navigating World Way, whether upper or lower, and as a direct result, he was exposed to those risks at a rate "quantitatively greater than [those] risks common to the public." (See Chairez, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 601, italics added.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded by defendant's argument that the special risk exception cannot apply in this case because applicant was somehow not exposed to a risk "quantitatively greater than risks common to the public" merely because on the day of his injuries, he traversed World Way to catch a ride from his girlfriend rather than traversing World Way to catch the shuttle bus.
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.