ADJ17834281 · November 7, 2025

The injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because it was barred by the going and coming rule, with no applicable exceptions met by the applicant.

From the decision · page 4The undersigned issued a Finding & Order (F&O) in which it was found that Applicant's injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment because it fell within the "going and coming" rule. applicant (Petitioner) timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Petitioner contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order. The undersigned recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.

Petitioner was driving directly from home to work and was not performing any work-related errands or tasks at the time of the injury.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supports the application of the going and coming rule, barring the claim as the injury did not arise out of employment.

From the decision · page 5On May 26, 2023, on his way to work in the company truck, Petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident (MVA). Petitioner had not performed any services for his employer in the afternoon/evening on the way home from work on May 25, 2025. Petitioner was not performing any errands, tasks, or services for his employer when he was driving to work on the morning of the MVA; he was driving directly from home to work. (Summary of Evidence dated 2/13/25 at p. 5: 18-21.) Petitioner sustained injury as a result of the 5/26/23 MVA. This case was set before the undersigned on the issue of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Petitioner was aware that the pipe delivery was taken away from him and was no longer performing deliveries for the employer.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact negates any special mission or errand exception to the going and coming rule, supporting denial of the claim.

From the decision · page 4At some point before leaving work on May 25, 2023, the pipe delivery was taken away from Petitioner. (See Summary of Evidence dated 2/13/25 at p. 5: 2-21.) Petitioner was aware that he was no longer being asked to deliver the pipe and that it had been removed from the company truck. (Ibid.) The only item Petitioner took home with him from work that day on May 25, 2023 was the sheet metal given to him by his employer for his own personal use. (Id. at p. 5: 18-19.)

Labor Code section 5903

Labor Code section 5903 provides grounds for reconsideration.

Petitioner contended that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order, which are grounds under Labor Code section 5903.

From the decision · page 5Pursuant to Labor Code section 5903, there are only five grounds on which reconsideration may be sought. Among those grounds, Petitioner contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order. The undersigned recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.

Ocean Accident and Guarantee Co. v. IAC (1916) 173 Cal. 313, 322; Hinojosa v. WCAB (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 150

Going and coming rule bars injuries sustained during commute unless exceptions apply.

The going and coming rule applies to injuries during commute to or from fixed place of business at fixed hours absent special circumstances, which was the basis for denying the claim.

From the decision · page 5The undersigned found that Petitioner did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on May 26, 2023 because his claim is barred by the "going and coming" rule. Under the "going and coming" rule, injuries sustained during an employee's commute to and from work are generally non-industrial. (See Ocean Accident and Guarantee Co. v. IAC (1916) 173 Cal. 313, 322; Hinojosa v. WCAB (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 150.) The "going and coming" rule applies to injuries occurring during a local commute to or from a "fixed place of business at fixed hours in the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances." (Hinojosa v. WCAB (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157.) Unless an exception is established, the going and coming rule will bar an employee workers' compensation claim. None of the exceptions to the going and coming rule apply to the facts at hand. Nevertheless, the undersigned will discuss the only two plausible exceptions whereby Petitioner could theoretically argue that he met an exception to the going and coming rule.

Petitioner was not performing any errands, tasks, or services for the employer when driving to work on the morning of the injury and was aware that the pipe delivery was taken away from him.

From the decision · page 5On May 26, 2023, on his way to work in the company truck, Petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident (MVA). Petitioner had not performed any services for his employer in the afternoon/evening on the way home from work on May 25, 2025. Petitioner was not performing any errands, tasks, or services for his employer when he was driving to work on the morning of the MVA; he was driving directly from home to work. (Summary of Evidence dated 2/13/25 at p. 5: 18-21.) Petitioner sustained injury as a result of the 5/26/23 MVA. This case was set before the undersigned on the issue of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.