Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, § 3202; Hinojosa v. WCAB (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150
Liberal construction and reasonable-doubt rule: any reasonable doubt regarding applicability of going-and-coming doctrine resolved in employee’s favor
Doubt resolved in favor of finding AOE/COE
From the decision · page 6Code, § 3202.) It is well settled that “any reasonable doubt as to the applicability of the going and coming doctrine must be resolved in the employee’s favor.” ( Hinojosa, supra, at 155-156; Parks v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 585, 593 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 208].)
Jones v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 502; Schultz v. WCAB (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1126
Premises line rule: employment relationship commences when employee enters employer’s premises (including parking lot); injury presumed compensable until employee leaves premises
Applicant was on employer’s premises within reasonable margin of time and space; therefore injury presumed compensable
From the decision · page 6In an effort to create a ‘sharp line of demarcation’ as to when the employee’s commute terminates and the course of employment commences, courts adopted the premises line rule, which provides that the employment relationship generally commences once the employee enters the employer’s premises.
Rankin v. WCAB (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 857; State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WCAB (1967) 67 Cal.2d 925
Material deviation rule: only a substantial or material deviation takes employee out of course of employment; slight or personal comfort deviations do not
Brief personal conversation with co-worker after shift was not a substantial deviation
From the decision · page 8take the employee out of employment. ( Rankin v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3th 857, 860 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 286]; State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 925, 928 [32 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Western Pipe & Steel Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com.