ADJ15799667 · March 10, 2023

Applicant was injured on employer's premises while waiting for her ride home after her shift ended, which is reasonably contemplated by employment and not a material deviation from duties, thus compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a).

From the decision · page 2applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her head while employed by defendant and that all other issues are deferred.

Applicant was injured while waiting for her ride home on employer's premises after her shift ended.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established that the injury occurred within the course and scope of employment under the premises rule exception to the going and coming rule.

Labor Code section 3600(a)

Labor Code section 3600(a) provides for liability for injuries sustained arising out of and in the course of employment.

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

From the decision · page 2Preliminarily, Labor Code section 3600(a) provides for liability for injuries sustained "arising out of and in the course of employment." Accordingly, "course and scope of employment" is not the correct standard, and while we agree with the WCJ that applicant's injury is compensable, we clarify the language of the F&O to comport with the statutory language. Further, the parties stipulated at the time of trial that applicant claimed injury to her head, brain, and hips, and deferred injury to other body parts. (Minutes of Hearing, Summary of Evidence, p. 2.) While applicant did not testify as to the extent of her injuries, we note that the Traffic Crash Report states that applicant was taken from the accident by ambulance and that she suffered a "laceration to the back of the head...". (Exhibit 1, p. 3.) Based on that report, we conclude that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her head.

Applicant was waiting in the outdoor break area on employer's premises for her ride home after her shift ended, which was a usual and customary practice and not prohibited by employer policy.

From the decision · page 9We think that he may do those normal things that men do during any other work-free period, and unless his action is so wholly unreasonable as to support an inference that he abandoned the employment, he remains within the course of employment." In the case-at- hand, Applicant testified that the outdoor break area was used for people to take their lunch or 15-minute break, to wait for someone to give them a ride, or as a waiting area in the morning before clocking in. She had witnessed other people use this area when off the clock and was not aware of a policy against using this area when off the clock, (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, 11/28/22 8:30AM session, 3:1 to 3:4). It is within the realm of reasonableness that an employee might wait on an employer's premises for a ride home after their shift ends. Although Applicant was not performing her assigned duties at the time of the accident in the case-at-hand, she was waiting less than 10 minutes in the outdoor employee break area for her ride home after her work shift ended and therefore was within the scope of her employment.