What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's finding that applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment affirmed.
Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's January 22, 2024 Findings of Fact denying defendant's challenge to applicant's injury AOE/COE under the special mission exception to the going and coming rule.
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.
AOE/COEApplicant prevailedhead · brain · upper extremities · lower extremities · fingers · left eye
The WCJ found the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the required class attendance was a special mission, not a normal commute, supported by case law distinguishing special mission activities from routine duties.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 22, 2024 Findings of Fact issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) and that his claim was not barred by the "going and coming" rule because it is subject to the "special mission" exception. Defendant asserts that the WCJ erred in applying the exception, because the activity applicant was injured on the way to was not "special" or "extraordinary."