What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board on April 27, 2026.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 3, 2026, which found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment and ordered applicant to take nothing.
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 the Board found that the injury occurred during the applicant's regular commute and did not fall within any exceptions to the going and coming rule, including the zone of employment or special risk exceptions, and thus the claim was barred.
From the decision · page 3Liability for workers' compensation accrues for an injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment." (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd. (a).) Injuries sustained while an employee is "going and coming" to and from the place of employment do not normally arise out of and in the course of employment because the employee is neither providing benefit to the employer nor under the control of the employer during that commute. (Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345, 351§ 352 [1985 Cal. LEXIS 410]; Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) "[T]he going and coming rule applies when the employee is commuting between his home and work or, as Hinojosa characterizes it, it applies to a `local commute enroute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours.' (Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 157.)" (Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1031, 1038 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 692].)