Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 3600, subd. (a)
Injuries arising out of and in the course of employment are compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a).
The court applied this standard to determine compensability of the injury.
From the decision · page 2Liability for workers' compensation accrues for an injury "arising out of and in the course
of the employment." (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd. (a).) "[A]ny reasonable doubt as to whether the act
of the employee is contemplated by the employment should be resolved in favor of the employee
in view of the policy of liberal construction of the workmen's compensation laws." (Tingey v.
Industrial Acci. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 636, 641; see also Lab. Code, § 3202 and Maher v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729, 733 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 326].)
Smith v. Workmen's Comp.App.Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 814
The going and coming rule excludes injuries sustained during an employee's commute to or from work unless an exception applies.
The court considered this rule and its exceptions in evaluating the claim.
From the decision · page 2"Under the well established going and coming rule, an employee does not pursue the course
of his employment when he is on his way to or from work." (Smith v. Workmen's Comp.App.Bd.
(1968) 69 Cal.2d 814, 815-816 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 771] (Smith) citing Zenith Nat. Ins. Co. v.
Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 944, 946.) Thus, injuries sustained while an
employee is "going and coming" to and from the place of employment do not normally arise out
of and in the course of employment because the employee is neither providing benefit to the
employer nor under the control of the employer during that commute. (Santa Rosa Junior College
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345, 351§ 352 [1985 Cal. LEXIS 410]; Hinojosa
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734] (Hinojosa).)
It applies to a `local commute enroute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours.' (Hinojosa, supra,
8 Cal.3d at p. 157.)" (Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1031, 1038 [82
Cal.Comp.Cases 692].)
Smith v. Workmen's Comp.App.Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 814
The required vehicle exception applies when an employee is required to have reliable transportation that benefits the employer.
The court applied this exception to find the injury compensable.
From the decision · page 92d 814; 33 CCC 771, on page 775 that an
employee "is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment when he
engages in conduct reasonably directed toward the fulfillment of his employer's requirements,
performed for the benefit and advantage of the employer." In Smith, the employer required the
worker to furnish a vehicle of transportation on the job and the Court found that this "curtails the
application of the going and coming exclusion." The Court went on to say on page 776 that,
"Indeed, an employer must be conclusively presumed to benefit from employee action reasonably
directed towards the execution of the employer's orders or requirements.