ADJ12278544 · June 7, 2021

Applicant was engaged in employment-related work in a company-provided mobile office vehicle, simultaneously performing personal errands but remaining available for work communications, thus not materially deviating from employment duties and within the course of employment under the Dual Purpose Rule.

From the decision · page 7Applicant was involved in a serious automobile accident in his company- provided vehicle on 01/24/2018, Defendant accepted the claim and provided benefits. Later, applicant was deposed and testified that he was in field in his company-provided vehicle performing work for Ormco in servicing orthodontist accounts on 01/24/2018. At some point in the day applicant engaged in a personal errand by stopping at a car dealership. From there he headed to his child's school for pick up. While driving between these two locations applicant was involved the serious vehicle accident and was injured. Based upon this deposition testimony, the defendant then denied the claim and ceased provision of benefits to applicant asserting applicant was engaged in strictly personal errands when the vehicle accident occurred, alleging the various theories set forth at trial and their petition as to why defendant has no liability to provide benefits herein.

Applicant was driving an employer-provided vehicle equipped as a mobile office and was performing work duties at the time of injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established that the applicant was engaged in employment-related activities at the time of the accident, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 7Applicant was involved in a serious automobile accident in his company- provided vehicle on 01/24/2018, Defendant accepted the claim and provided benefits. Later, applicant was deposed and testified that he was in field in his company-provided vehicle performing work for Ormco in servicing orthodontist accounts on 01/24/2018. At some point in the day applicant engaged in a personal errand by stopping at a car dealership. From there he headed to his child's school for pick up. While driving between these two locations applicant was involved the serious vehicle accident and was injured. Based upon this deposition testimony, the defendant then denied the claim and ceased provision of benefits to applicant asserting applicant was engaged in strictly personal errands when the vehicle accident occurred, alleging the various theories set forth at trial and their petition as to why defendant has no liability to provide benefits herein.

Applicant was simultaneously engaged in personal errands and work duties, remaining available for work communications.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported application of the Dual Purpose Rule, finding the injury compensable despite personal errands.

From the decision · page 8The fact that an actual phone call, text or email did not come to applicant during the time between travel from the car dealership and the school did not disconnect the applicant from the concurrent job duties applicant was simultaneously engaged in the course of employment which was being available and able to field calls, texts and emails at a moment's notice from his company vehicle/mobile office utilizing the tools the employer provided him. This was found to be the employer's expectation and is unique to just this employer, as they had established this working environment. Applicant was engaged in work for the employer and was in the course of employment though traveling between the two personal errand locations. Applicant was engaged in both activities at the same time. Therefore, the deviation, if any, during the personal errands was minor and did not take applicant out of the spectrum of performing work duties that benefitted the employer and was therefore in the course of employment at the time the vehicle accident occurred (AOE/COE). Additionally, since applicant was engaged in

Employer allowed personal errands during compensated time and provided tools to perform work duties remotely.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed the employer's acceptance of the dual purpose activity, supporting compensability.

From the decision · page 7At trial it was established through the testimony of defense witness Hurst that the applicant was employed by ORMCO on 01/24/2018 as a senior territory manager. The applicant's job duties required that he perform sales to existing accounts with orthodontists and develop new accounts as well with applicant's territory covering primarily California and Nevada. No fixed office location was provided for the applicant, but instead the employer provided the following tools to applicant: a vehicle, cell phone and an email account. The applicant was expected to respond to any texts or emails through the cell phone/email account throughout the day.

Labor Code section 3600

Injury must arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable.

Applied to determine compensability of injury.

From the decision · page 2We now turn to the merits of the case. Labor Code1 section 3600 imposes liability on an employer for workers' compensation benefits where its employee sustains an injury "arising out of and in the course of employment." Whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment requires a two-prong analysis. (LaTourett v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].)

Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729

Employment and injury must be linked causally; contributory cause is sufficient.

Applied to establish causal link between employment and injury.

From the decision · page 2First, the injury must arise out of the employment, that is, occur by reason of a condition or incident of employment. (Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Gideon) (1953) 41 Cal.2d 676 [18 Cal.Comp.Cases 286, 288].) "[T]he employment and the injury must be linked in some causal fashion," but such connection need not be the sole cause, it is sufficient if it is a contributory cause. (Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases at page 326].) Second, the injury must occur "in the course of employment," which ordinarily "refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury occurs." (LaTourett v. Workers' Comp.

Price v. WCAB (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 559

Dual Purpose Rule: Injury during personal errand serving employer's interest is compensable.

Applied to find injury compensable despite personal errands due to concurrent work duties.

From the decision · page 9both activities at the same time, this falls under the Dual Purpose Rule. Under this rule the deviation is not substantial as the employee is at the precise location required by the employer. When an employee is engaged in a personal errand or activity while also serving the employer's interest, any injury that occurs at that time is within the course of employment. (See: Price v. WCAB (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 559).

Applicant's unrebutted testimony and defense witness testimony established that the applicant was engaged in work duties using employer-provided tools and vehicle at the time of injury.

From the decision · page 8Based upon the testimony of both Hurst and the applicant, it was found that the company vehicle as outfitted was for all intents and purposes a mobile office provided by the employer. It was additionally found that the applicant was at the beck and call of the orthodontists throughout the day and was expected to be at the ready to field any/all phone calls, texts and emails, wherever the applicant might be in an immediate manner. In this regard, this WCJ found that as long as applicant had the company provided tools, devices and/or vehicle in his possession he was performing a work function for the benefit of the employer as he was able to timely respond to the various accounts and service them expediently as is the mission of the employer which is both confirmed by the testimony of Hurst and the applicant.