ADJ14628369 · April 25, 2022

The WCAB found that applicant's injury occurred within the course of employment under the personal comfort doctrine, based on credible testimony and circumstances of the parking spot swap and motor vehicle collision.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on February 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that on April 20, 2021 applicant sustained injuries to various body parts arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) as a "Driving Logistics Associate/Driver" with defendant.

The WCAB found no evidence of WCJ misconduct or prejudice to defendant, and rejected the misconduct allegations.

From the decision · page 12Accordingly, we will affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. We next address defendant's contention that the WCJ engaged in misconduct by acting as a coach for applicant. Here we observe that all parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157§ 158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) Due process requires that a party be provided with reasonable notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. (Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 711§ 712 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) A failure to provide sufficient notice, which deprives the meaningful opportunity to object or present evidence, is a violation of due process of law. (See Fortich v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fortich) (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1449, 1452§ 1454 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 537]; see also Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp.

Applicant parked in co-worker's parking spot and got into co-worker's car as a passenger during work shift.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This conduct was found reasonably contemplated by employment under the personal comfort doctrine, establishing injury occurred in course of employment.

From the decision · page 10In the present case, the parties stipulated that applicant could not find street parking when he arrived at work, so he parked in defendant's customer lot, identified as the "West lot" in applicant's testimony. (Transcript of Proceedings, January 27, 2022, pp. 5:16-7:21, 17:22-18:2, 31:4-12.) Applicant's initial task that day was to deliver one of defendant's vehicles to the West lot; and, when he completed this task, he remembered that he needed to remove his own car from that lot. (Id., pp. 5:16-7:21.) A co-worker offered up his own parking spot; and, after parking in the spot previously occupied by the co-workers' car, applicant got into the co-worker's car as a passenger and sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision two minutes later. (Id., pp. 5:16-7:21, 24:15-24.)

Applicant's credible testimony was given great weight by WCJ and WCAB.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credibility determination supported finding injury arose in course of employment.

From the decision · page 12As such, we recognize the WCJ's determination that applicant testified credibly, and accord her determination great weight because she had the opportunity to observe applicant's demeanor at trial; and, as we explained, the record before us lacks evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant our rejection of her determination. (Report, pp. 6-17; Garza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

Applicant has not reached maximum medical improvement and should not be considered permanent and stationary; diagnosed injury to right hand.

Report dated March 7, 2022, states applicant has not reached MMI and documents right hand injury.

From the decision · page 7Rakkar, M.D., dated March 7, 2022. (Request to File Supplemental Petitions with Attachments, March 29, 2022.) The report states, in pertinent part:

Price v. WCAB (1984) 37 Cal.3d 510

Personal comfort doctrine applies to acts of personal convenience reasonably contemplated by employment.

Applied to find injury occurred in the course of employment despite parking spot swap being a personal favor.

From the decision · page 9Acts of 'personal convenience' are within the course of employment if they are 'reasonably contemplated by the employment [Citations]. Courts consider the nature of the act and the nature of the employment, the custom or usage of the employment, the terms of the employment contract, and `other factors.' [Citations.] In view of the policy favoring employee compensation, doubts as to whether an act is reasonably contemplated by the employment are resolved in favor of the employee. [Citations.] (Price, supra, 37 Cal. 3d at 567§ 568.)

Applicant's credible testimony and co-worker's testimony about parking spot swap and circumstances of injury.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued on February 4, 2022, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found as relevant that on April 20, 2021 applicant sustained injuries to various body parts arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) as a "Driving Logistics Associate/Driver" with defendant.