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].)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was injured on a public street before arriving at the employer's premises, which the employer did not own or control.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment under the going and coming rule.
From the decision · page 4Here, the facts are not in dispute: In the present matter, the injured worker had not entered the employer's premises at the time of injury. The injured worker testified that she worked at 827 7th Street in Downtown Sacramento (Minutes of Hearing, Summary of Evidence at Page 3, Line 6). She was on I street between 8th and 9th Street when the injury took place. She had not yet arrived at the entrance to her place of work (Id. at Page 3, Line 14-15). There is no evidence presented that the employer owned or had any control over the area where the injury took place.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 3600, subd. (a); Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345; Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150; Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1031
Going and coming rule barring compensation for injuries sustained during commute unless exceptions apply.
The Board applied the going and coming rule to find the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because it occurred during the applicant's commute and no exceptions were established.
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].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony that she was injured on I street between 8th and 9th Street before arriving at her workplace, and that the employer did not own or control the area where the injury occurred.
From the decision · page 4Here, the facts are not in dispute: In the present matter, the injured worker had not entered the employer's premises at the time of injury. The injured worker testified that she worked at 827 7th Street in Downtown Sacramento (Minutes of Hearing, Summary of Evidence at Page 3, Line 6). She was on I street between 8th and 9th Street when the injury took place. She had not yet arrived at the entrance to her place of work (Id. at Page 3, Line 14-15). There is no evidence presented that the employer owned or had any control over the area where the injury took place.
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.