What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant regarding May 13, 2021 WCJ Findings of Fact
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 injury arose out of and in the course of employment under the special activity exception to the going and coming rule, as the employer benefits from employees having access to vehicles for travel between job sites, and the injury occurred during such travel.
From the decision · page 1the applicant, alleges injury resulting in Death occurred on December 12, 2018, while employed by the City and County of San Francisco. At the time of the Applicant's death the employer was permissibly self-insured.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Applicant was driving his vehicle on a route between fire stations when the fatal accident occurred.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This travel was considered a special activity within the course of employment, placing the injury within the going and coming rule exception.
From the decision · page 1the applicant, alleges injury resulting in Death occurred on December 12, 2018, while employed by the City and County of San Francisco. At the time of the Applicant's death the employer was permissibly self-insured.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3202
Labor Code section 3202 requires liberal construction of the Act to protect the injured.
The court must resolve doubts in favor of coverage under the going and coming rule exceptions.
From the decision · page 4While the first scenario is clear and would result in a finding of non-industrial causation, the second has been the area of significant litigation and further distinction. The present matter clearly falls within the going and coming rule. Evaluating which of the circumstances described in Hinojosa applies to the present matter is the sole question to be decided. To evaluate such circumstances, the California Supreme Court has directed "In determining whether the going and coming rule bars compensation in a particular case, the courts must abide by the mandate of Labor Code section 3202, which provides that the Act `shall be liberally construed' to protect the injured. Any doubts as to the rule's application are to be resolved in favor of coverage." Price v. WCAB (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 559, 565 (citations omitted).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Testimony of Captain Neuneker regarding employer benefit from employees having vehicles for travel between job sites and the need for speedy transportation to prevent firehouse closure due to understaffing.
From the decision · page 5In applying the balancing test the undersigned concludes the Applicant having access to his vehicle provides a clear benefit to the employer and occurred with the employer's implicit consent, both of which place this injury within the exception to the going and coming rule. The employer here has never made an explicit request that its employees have access to a car in order to perform their job duties. Nevertheless, the employer receives a clear benefit from its employees having access to cars. As Chief Neuneker testified, firefighters can only learn of the need to travel once at the job-site; such lack of advanced notice necessitates firefighters be capable of travel between locations. While the Defendant asserts travel by bicycle or public transit is an available means of
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.