What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's July 14, 2025 Findings and Order denying benefits based on the going and coming rule; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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 found the injury was not compensable under the going and coming rule, but the Appeals Board found no substantial evidence supporting that finding and granted reconsideration for further review.
From the decision · page 3the applicant, deceased, [], while employed on October 3, 2022, as a commercial truck driver at Porterville, California by Young's claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE of blunt force trauma to his head as a result of a motor vehicle accident resulting in death.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found the injury occurred during the normal commute and was not within the course of employment under the going and coming rule.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding led to denial of benefits by the WCJ.
From the decision · page 3The case proceeded to trial on May 27, 2025. At trial, the undersigned found that Applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on October 3, 2022 as alleged, Applicant's injury occurred during the course of his normal commute from his place of employment and was not within the course of his employment under the "going and coming" rule and because the Applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, no attorney's fees are awarded. The undersigned ordered that the Applicant take nothing. It is from this Finding and Order that Applicant seeks reconsideration.
The Appeals Board found no substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding on injury AOE/COE and granted reconsideration for further review.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to granting reconsideration and deferral of final decision.
From the decision · page 5Based on our preliminary review, we are not persuaded that there is substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision on the issue of injury AOE/COE. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600
Injury must arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable.
Applied to determine compensability of injury.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 3600 imposes liability on an employer for workers' compensation benefits only if its employee sustains an injury "arising out of and in the course of employment." The "going and coming" rule excludes from compensability injuries that occur while the employee is going to or returning from work in the routine commute. (Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Slattery) (1916) 173 Cal. 313.) "The rule provides that an injury suffered `during a local commute en route to a fixed place of business at fixed hours in the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances is not within the course of employment.'" (Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Price) (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559, 564§ 565 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 772] quoting Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) The rationale for this judicially created doctrine is that during an ordinary commute, the employee is not rendering any service for the benefit of the employer. (City of San Diego v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Molnar) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1385 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 692].)
Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Slattery) (1916) 173 Cal. 313
Going and coming rule excludes injuries during routine commute unless exceptions apply.
Applied to exclude injury from compensability under routine commute.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 3600 imposes liability on an employer for workers' compensation benefits only if its employee sustains an injury "arising out of and in the course of employment." The "going and coming" rule excludes from compensability injuries that occur while the employee is going to or returning from work in the routine commute. (Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Slattery) (1916) 173 Cal. 313.) "The rule provides that an injury suffered `during a local commute en route to a fixed place of business at fixed hours in the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances is not within the course of employment.'" (Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Price) (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559, 564§ 565 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 772] quoting Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) The rationale for this judicially created doctrine is that during an ordinary commute, the employee is not rendering any service for the benefit of the employer. (City of San Diego v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Molnar) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1385 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 692].)
Zenith National Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 944
Exceptions to going and coming rule include employer furnished transportation or compensation for travel time.
Considered exceptions to going and coming rule for compensability.
From the decision · page 4However, numerous exceptions to the going and coming rule exist. (Hinojosa, supra, at p. 156.) "Since the going and coming rule rests upon the basis that the employer-employee relationship lapses during the employee's off-duty absence from the job, [] the rule does not apply in the event that the relationship in fact continues.... courts have recognized exceptions to the rule upon a showing that the employer furnished transportation to the worker, or compensated him for travel time or defrayed his travel expenses." (Zenith National Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 944, 947 [32 Cal.Comp.Cases 236]; see also Kobe v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1950) 35 Cal. 2d 33, 35 (15 Cal.Comp.Cases 85, 87) [the employer may agree, either expressly or impliedly, that the relationship shall continue during the period of "going and coming," in which case the employee is entitled to the protection of the act during that period.... such an agreement may... be inferred from the fact that the employer compensates the employee for the time consumed in traveling to and from work").)
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.