ADJ17834281 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied by the Appeals Board.

Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Appeals Board after review of the WCJ report.

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/COEDefendant prevailed

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.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

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.

ADJ17834281 · November 7, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page