Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600(a)
Labor Code section 3600(a) liability for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment
Employer liable without regard to negligence; employee bears burden of proof for AOE/COE
From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION
Labor Code section 3600(a)1 provides for liability for injuries sustained "arising out of and
in the course of the employment." An employer is liable for workers' compensation benefits
"without regard to negligence." (Lab. Code, § 3600(a).) An employee bears the burden of proving
injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab.
Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of
Latourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644
Definition of 'in the course of employment' and 'arising out of employment' requiring causal link and reasonable contemplation by employment
Injury must occur by reason of condition or incident of employment; acts reasonably contemplated by employment are compensable
From the decision · page 4The phrase "in the course of employment" "`ordinarily refers to the time, place, and
circumstances under which the injury occurs.'" (Latourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998)
17 Cal.4th 644, 651 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253], citing Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1983) 33 Cal. 3d 729, 733.) An "employee is in the `course of his employment' when he does
those reasonable things which his contract with his employment expressly or impliedly permits
him to do." (Latourette, supra, at p. 651.) For the injury to arise out of employment, it must
"'occur by reason of a condition or incident of [the] employment.' [citation] That is, the
employment and the injury must be linked in some causal fashion. [citation]" (Id. at p.
Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559
Acts of personal convenience reasonably contemplated by employment are within course of employment
Acts necessary to life, comfort, and convenience at work are incidental to service and compensable
From the decision · page 4"Acts of `personal convenience' are within the course of employment if they are
`reasonably contemplated by the employment.'" (Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37
Cal.3d 559, 568 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 773], citing Pacific Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1945) 26
Cal.2d 509, 514 [10 Cal.Comp.Cases 131]; see also Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 170, 176 [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 297]; Vogt v. Herron
Construction, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 643, 650-654.) "[A]cts necessary to the life, comfort
and convenience of the [employee] while at work, though strictly personal to himself, and not acts
of service, are incidental to the service, and injury sustained in the performance thereof is deemed
to have arisen out of the employment. [citations]." (Price, supra, at pp. 567-568.) Thus, even if
Rankin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 857
Deviation from duties must be substantial to take employee out of employment scope
Slight deviations do not release employer from liability; misconduct bars recovery only if it is a substantial deviation
From the decision · page 5We now turn to the issue of whether applicant's picking up tools was a material deviation
from applicant's duties. While a substantial or material deviation may take an employee out of
the employment relationship, a slight deviation will not take the employee out of employment.
(Rankin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 857, 860 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 286];
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 925, 928 [32
Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Western Pipe & Steel Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Henderson) (1942) 49
Cal.App.2d 108 [7 Cal.Comp.Cases 28].) "Mere deviation by an employee from a strict course of
duty does not release the [employer] from liability. In order to have such an effect the deviation
must be shown substantially to amount to an entire departure." (De Mirjian v. Ideal Heating Corp.,
supra, 129 Cal.App.2d at p. 766, citing Dolinar v. Pedone (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 169, 175.) In the
absence of an applicable statutory defense, misconduct that is negligent, willful, or even criminal
"will bar recovery only when it constitutes a deviation from the scope of employment."
(Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249, 253 [53 Cal.Comp.Cases
157] (Westbrooks).) Here, applicant picking up his tools was not a deviation, much less a
substantial or material deviation.
Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249
Violation of employer's rules does not remove injury from course of employment if injury occurs during performance of duties
Injury sustained in violation of employer's instructions still compensable if within scope of employment
From the decision · page 5Finally, the injury is still compensable even if there was a rule against an employee using
their own tools or if applicant was told not to use his own tools. Holding a violation of an
employer's instructions or rules as not within the course of employment could "undermine the no-
fault foundation of workers' compensation law." (Westbrooks, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 254.)
In other words, "[w]here an employee is in the performance of the duties of his employer, the fact
that the injury was sustained while performing the duty in an unauthorized manner or in violation
of instructions or rules of his employer does not make the injury one incurred outside the scope of
employment." (Williams v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 937, 940 [39
Cal.Comp.Cases 619].) For example, a bus station security guard's injury was found to be
AOE/COE when he was injured while chasing a person disturbing other passengers despite the
employment handbook's rule against chasing anyone. (Zenith Insurance Company v. W.C.A.B.