Applicant was injured while commuting in a private vanpool vehicle not owned or registered by the employer.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact bars the claim under Labor Code section 3600.8 which excludes coverage for injuries during voluntary participation in alternative commute programs without employer-owned vehicles.
From the decision · page 17Petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration never addressed the fundamental fact that the
vehicle that the applicant was a passenger in during the accident was neither registered nor owned
by the state. The vehicle was privately owned, and the applicant voluntarily participated in the
program. He was not required to utilize the program, and the program was not a condition of his
employment. The $65.00 per month payment the applicant received to participate in this voluntary
vanpool as reimbursement for the vanpool was not wages, salary or compensation. Under these
Applicant was not compensated for travel time while participating in the vanpool program.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of compensation for travel time means the claim is barred under Labor Code section 3600.8(a).
From the decision · page 13Labor Code § 3600.8(a) states that the employee must be paid his or her regular wage or salary in
compensation for the periods of travel. The WCAB concluded that Labor Code § 3600.8(a)
prohibits the finding of injury AOE/COE when an employee is utilizing an alternative commute
program to travel to or from his or her place of employment, unless compensated for the travel.
(Rockwell International/Rocketdyne Div. v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd., 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 221
(Cal. App. 2d Dist. January 30, 1997, Writ Denied; see also City of Redlands v. Workers
Compensation Appeals Bd., 1999 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 5593 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. August 2,
1999) 64 Cal. Comp. Cases 1151, Writ Denied.)
Applicant voluntarily participated in the vanpool program and was not required to use it as a condition of employment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Voluntary participation without requirement or mandate excludes coverage under the going and coming rule and Labor Code section 3600.8.
From the decision · page 17Petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration never addressed the fundamental fact that the
vehicle that the applicant was a passenger in during the accident was neither registered nor owned
by the state. The vehicle was privately owned, and the applicant voluntarily participated in the
program. He was not required to utilize the program, and the program was not a condition of his
employment. The $65.00 per month payment the applicant received to participate in this voluntary
vanpool as reimbursement for the vanpool was not wages, salary or compensation. Under these