What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
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 court found that the applicant's use of her own vehicle was both an explicit and implicit requirement of her job with Solutions, and that the transit between patients was part of the employment relationship, extending the employer-employee relationship and applying the automobile exception to the going and coming rule. The claim was not barred and AOE/COE was found for Solutions and Pinnacle/Apex. The court did not find AOE/COE for Affinity as no transit was involved at the time of injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was required to use her own vehicle and provide proof of driver's license and insurance as part of her job with Solutions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established an explicit and implicit automobile requirement, extending the employer-employee relationship during transit between patients.