INJURY AOE/COE - Going-and-coming rule–When the employer provides the means of transportation, the worker comes under the control of the employer and the course of employment begins when the travel begins. (See Zenith Nat. Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (DeCarmo) (1967) 66 Cal.2d 944.) [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - Going-and-coming rule–When the employer provides the worker with a vehicle to facilitate his travel to a remote job site and the direction of travel at the time of his injury is not toward the job site, it become necessary to consider whether the evidence establishes that his travel so materially deviated from a reasonably contemplated route as to compel the conclusion the he was not traveling in the course of employment at the time he was injured. (See Red Arrow Bonded Messenger Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (O'Brien) (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 559.) Hernandez , Kroone & Associates v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (William Vogt) 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,062 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - Criminal assault on employer's premises-In this case, an on-campus criminal assault by a Vietnamese assailant of a college professor, possibly motivated by the professor's status as a Vietnam veteran, was found to be compensable. Los Angeles Community College District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (James McGowan) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,361 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - Commercial Traveler Rule–Commercial traveler status does not arise by virtue of an employee's unilateral, voluntary decision to engage in an activity that offers a minor benefit to the employer. The activity must be expressly or impliedly authorized by the employment contract. ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURYAOE/COE - Special-Mission Exception–An employee may not create a special mission by his own unilateral action, which action was not expected or anticipated by the employer. For the special-mission exception to apply, the travel itself must have significance to the employer. (See C.L. Pharris Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 584.) City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Lucina M. DeLeon) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,341 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE - Special-risk exception to the going-and-coming rule-The injury was sustained when the applicant cab driver was shot in a holdup attempt. The injury occurred between 150 and 200 feet from the entrance to the cab company yard, which was too far away to be considered on the premises or driveway of the cab company. Under the facts of this case, it was found that applicant's arrival at 2:00 a.m., in a known dangerous neighborhood, created a situation within the special-risk exception of the going-and-coming rule. It was found that the injury was causally related to the employment, in that the driver would not have been at that place of injury in absence of reporting for work, and the injury was in a particularly dangerous area known for crime and violence. Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Grivaldo Cesar Cotrim) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,331 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - Special mission exception to the going-and-coming rule–When the employee engages in a special activity that is (1) special, that is extraordinary, in relation to the employee's routine duties, (2) is within the course of his employment and (3) reasonably undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer, an injury suffered while traveling to and from the place of such activity is also within the course of employment and is compensable. (See Dimmig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.2d 880.). [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - Dual-purpose exception to the going-and-coming rule applies to a local commute when the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer not common to ordinary commutes, even if one purpose of the trip is personal to the employee. (See Bramall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 151.) Manuel J. Hernandez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, ABR Construction 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,315 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - An injury sustained by an employee acting in response to an emergency or other situation, whether it is classified as a rescue, response to an emergency, or exercise of common decency, is within the course of employment. (See Martinez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 15 Cal.33d 982.) Bakersfield City School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Robert Boyd) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,308 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE - Commercial Traveler Rule–Does commercial traveler status arise by virtue of an employee's unilateral, voluntary decision to engage in an activity which offers a minor benefit to the employer? [Writ Granted]

INJURY AOE/COE - Special Mission Exception–Can an employee create a special mission by his own unilateral action which action was not expected or anticipated by the employer? City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Lucina M. DeLeon) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,263 [Writ Granted]

INJURY AOE/COE - Special mission exception to the going and coming rule–When the employee engages in a special activity that is (1) special, that is extraordinary, in relation to the employees routine duties, (2) is within the course of his employment and (3) reasonably undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer, an injury suffered while traveling to and from the place of such activity is also within the course of employment and is compensable. (See Dimmig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.2d 880.) Michael Rash v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,187 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE Voluntary off-duty recreational activity–Labor Code §3600(a)(10)–In applying the reasonable expectancy test, the first issue is whether the employee subjectively believed that participation in the activity was expected by the employer, a question of fact. The second issue is whether the employee's belief is objectively reasonable, a question of law. (See Ezzy v. WCAB (1981) 146 Cal.App.3d 252.) City of Chino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Anthony Alvo) 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,081 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - In the absence of exceptional circumstances, an employee is not covered by workers' compensation while "going and coming" to and from a place of employment. (See Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150.) [In this case, the employer supplied the employee with paid and mandated housing, but the employee failed to demonstrate the injury arose out of and in the course of employment or that the employer was in any way negligent for the resulting injury and was entitled to full credit for the applicant's civil action recovery against the apartment house owner.] Zelie Medina v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Advanced Receivables Strategy 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,351 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE - Exceptions to going and coming rule—The special risk exception to the going and coming rule applies, if (1) the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred but for the employment, and (2) the risk is "distinctive in nature and quantitatively greater than risks common to the general public." (See Parks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 686.) [In this case it was found that applicant would not have been at the location where the injury occurred, i.e. in his car loaded with a hazardous material, but for his employment and that the amount of product that applicant was transporting and the time/distance he was transporting it made his risk distinctive and quantitatively greater than risks common to the public in general.] St Paul Travelers' Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Roger Schleifstein) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,338 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE - Going and Coming Rule–The Appeals Board did not err when it found that an off-duty correctional officer injured while assisting an accident victim on his way to work did not sustain a compensable injury. Ryan Pettigrew v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California Department of Corrections 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,299 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE- The special risk exception to the going and coming rule applies whether the employee is entering or leaving the employer's premises. The two-prong test for finding a special risk is: (1) but for the employment, the injured worker would not have been at the location where the injury occurred, and (2) the risk was distinctive from that of the general public. General Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Chairez) (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595.) [In this case, the employee was exposed to risks distinct from those to which the public was exposed because he was shot as he was leaving his work premises, by assailants who had observed him counting the day's receipts shortly before he left his work premises.] Marcos Uribe v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Nikiforos Valaskantijis/Tom's Burgers #6 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,270 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE-Special mission exception to the going and coming rule–An injury sustained by an employee during his regular commute is compensable if he was also performing a special mission for his employer. (See Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 158.) To be a special mission, the activity must be substantially connected to the employment and of material benefit to the employer. (See Shell Oil Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. I91962) 199 Cal.App.2d 426.) Gary Aylworth v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Solano County Sheriff's Department 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,226 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE-Off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity-Labor Code §3600(a)(10)-Duty status alone is not the determining factor as to whether the injured worker's injury is compensable. The injured worker has the burden to objectively demonstrate he or she reasonably believed participation in the activity was expressly or impliedly required by the employment. (See Taylor v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 211.) Michael John Carra v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Beverly Hills 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,211 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE-Going and Coming Rule–Did the Appeals Board err when it found that an off-duty correctional officer injured while assisting an accident victim on his way to work did not sustain a compensable injury? Ryan Pettigrew v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California Department of Corrections 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,158 [writ granted]

INJURY AOE/COE-Going and Coming Rule–The employer-employee relationship is considered suspended during the period the employee is en route to and from work because the employer does not pay for the employee's services and the employee provides no benefit in return. (See generally, Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150.) [In this case, the employee was paid mileage for a one-way trip to a new job assignment and he was injured when he was returning home at the conclusion of the assignment. The special errand or mission exception to the going and coming rule did not apply.] Vu Ho v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Tad Technical 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,177 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Did the Appeals Board err in determining that applicant's injury was not compensable when he was shot entering his vehicle parked on a public street adjacent to his place of employment? Marcos Uribe v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Nikiforos Valaskantijis/Tom's Burgers #6 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,143[Writ Granted]

INJURY AOE/COE¬ Did the Appeals Board err in determining that applicant's injury was not compensable when he was shot entering his vehicle parked on a public street adjacent to his place of employment? Marcos Uribe v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Nikiforos Valaskantijis/Tom's Burgers #6 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,143[Writ Granted]

INJURY AOE/COE- Going and coming rule exception–When an employer requires the employee to provide his personal vehicle to perform his job duties, the going and coming rule does not apply. (See Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 C.2d 814.) Citadel Broadcasting Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Terry Nelson) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,130 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- The fact that the injured worker had prior problems that may be apportioned for permanent disability purposes pursuant to Labor Code §§4664 and 4664 are not relevant to the issue of whether the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. (See Reyes Hart Plastering (2005) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,078 [Significant Panel Decision].) Marin Apothecaries, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Nozer Patel)8 WCAB Rptr. 10,135 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Industrial causation of injury–Labor Code §3600–An industrial injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment, and be proximately caused by the employment. For the injury to be proximately caused by the employment, the employment must be a contributing cause without which the injury would not have occurred. (In this case, the applicant was an anesthesiologist who injected himself with narcotic drugs that he took from his employer without its consent. The drug addiction was found not to be industrial in origin because the addiction was sustained in connection with wrongdoing on the job.) Lewis Satloff v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,082 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Personal comfort and convenience doctrine–An injury sustained while the employee is briefly engaged in a personal act during work hours is compensable under the personal comfort doctrine, because the personal act is considered beneficial to the employer in that it allowed the worker to efficiently perform his work duties. (See Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 117.) (In this case, applicant injured her shoulder at work when she grabbed her purse with her hand and her shoulder was jerked downward.) Foundation Property Management v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Marisela Gutierrez) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,103 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Off-duty recreational, social or athletic event–Whether or not an activity is within the course of employment, the courts have recognized two scenarios where an off-premise activity is within the course of employment: (1) whether the employer derived some benefit from the employee's participation in the event, and (2) whether the employer had a reasonable expectation that the employee attend the event, i.e., whether the employee subjectively believed that the employment required that the employee engage in the activity and whether the belief was objectively reasonable. Valerie Nash v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Ingram Micro 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,101 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Burden of proof for hepatitis C injury causation–To establish industrial causation, applicant must prove a "reasonable probability" that applicant was infected with hepatitis C on the job. Even though the exact mechanism of infection is uncertain, applicant need establish only that it is reasonably probable that hepatitis C was contracted in the course of employment. (See McCallister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660 [writ denied]) County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Janet Harris) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,069 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Reasonable expectancy test–In applying the reasonable expectancy test, the first issue is whether the employee subjectively believed that participation in the activity was expected by the employee, a question of fact. The second issue is whether the employee's belief is objectively reasonable, a question of law. (See Meyer v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1036.) City of Stockton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Sean Jenneiahn) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,043 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE- Special mission exception to the going and coming rule–When the employee engages in a special activity that is within the course of his employment and reasonably undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer, an injury suffered while traveling to and from the place of such activity is also within the course of employment and is compensable. (See Dimmig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.2d 860.) Santa Rosa School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Judy Hagle) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,053 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOC/COE- Off-duty recreational or social activity–Labor Code §3600(a)(9)–Whether a voluntary off-duty event is compensable is determined by the reasonable expectancy of employment standard. The test for reasonable expectancy is (1) whether the employee subjectively believes his/her participation in an activity is expected by the employer, and (2) whether the belief is objectively reasonable. (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252.) Securities Security System v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Robert Tumas) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,035 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing nonindustrial condition–An employer may be liable for workers' compensation benefits, and an employee's death may be deemed to have been proximately caused by the employment where substantial evidence, in light of the entire record, shows that a pre-existing or nonindustrial condition is aggravated by the employment such that the aggravation hastens or produces the injured worker's death. (See Lamb v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; see also Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Industrial Accident Com. (Calabresi) (1946) 73 Cal.App2d 555.) Anthony Stavropoulos v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Los Angeles 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,020 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Commercial Traveler Rule and/or Special Mission Exception—An injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident during a vacation period following a business trip using employer-provided transportation is a material deviation such that the injury is not compensable. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (John Moody) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,003 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE- Negligent or reckless conduct by injured employee–A distinction is made between an unauthorized departure from the course of employment and the performance of a duty in an unauthorized matter. Injury occurring during the course of the former conduct is not compensable and the latter conduct does not take the employee outside the course of employment. (See Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Blackburn) (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 241.) Wells Fargo Bank v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Nikolai Goncharoff) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,017[Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity—Labor Code §3600(a)(9)—When an employee is injured off-duty while participating in recreational, social or athletic activity, the injuries are excluded for workers' compensation coverage, except when such activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by the employment. The test of reasonable expectancy of employment consists of two elements: (1) whether the employee subjectively believes his or her participation in an activity is expected by the employer, and (2) whether the belief is objectively reasonable. (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 146 Cal.App.3d 252.) John Swafford v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Solano County Sheriff Department 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,018[Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Reasonable expectancy test for AOE/COE determination–For an injury to occur "in the course of employment," it must occur while the employee is performing services growing out of and incidental to the employment. Such acts are those expressly or impliedly permitted in the employment's employment contract. (See Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729). Certain acts, under common standards of humanity, are reasonably to be expected in the course of employment, and must be impliedly contemplated as permissible acts under the employment contract. (See North American Rockwell Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Saska) (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 154.). The reasonable expectancy test is met when an employee gives aid to or rescues a person for whom the employer has an interest, such as a customer or co-employee. (In this case, the employee was shot during the course of a robbery at his employer's premises.) Super Mercado Mexico v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Ramon Nunez) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,019 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- Special mission exception to the going and coming rule–To support the existence of the special mission exception, the underlying activity must be: (1) special, that is, extraordinary in relation to the employee's routine duties; (2) within the scope of the employee's employment; and (3) undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer. (See C.L. Pharris Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 584.) The special mission exception is ordinarily held inapplicable when the only special component is that the employee began work earlier or quit work later than usual. (See Baroid v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 558.) Ralph C. Mauzy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of San Diego 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,011 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE- The going and coming rule–In precluding recovery of workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained during an employee's normal commute to and from work, the going and coming rule is based on the notion that an employee is not rendering services that benefit the employer during his or her commute. But when the employer requests or invites an employee to travel to or from a place to engage in a special activity that is within the scope of employment, the employee's travel on the special mission is deemed to incidentally benefit the employer. (See Dimmig v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 860.) ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE– Aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing nonindustrial condition– An employer may be liable for workers' compensation benefits, and an employee's death may be deemed to have been proximately caused by the employment where substantial evidence, in light of the entire record, shows that a pre-existing or nonindustrial condition is aggravated by the employment such that the aggravation hastens or produces the injured worker's death. (See Lamb v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; see also Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Industrial Accident Com. (Calabresi) (1946) 73 Cal.App2d 555.) Anthony Stavropoulos v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Los Angeles 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,020 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Reasonable expectancy test for AOE/COE determination–For an injury to occur "in the course of employment," it must occur while the employee is performing services growing out of and incidental to the employment. Such acts are those expressly or impliedly permitted in the employment's employment contract. (See Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729). Certain acts, under common standards of humanity, are reasonably to be expected in the course of employment, and must be impliedly contemplated as permissible acts under the employment contract. (See North American Rockwell Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Saska) (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 154.). The reasonable expectancy test is met when an employee gives aid to or rescues a person for whom the employer has an interest, such as a customer or co-employee. (In this case, the employee was shot during the course of a robbery at his employer's premises.) Super Mercado Mexico v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Ramon Nunez) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,019 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity— Labor Code §3600(a)(9)— When an employee is injured off-duty while participating in recreational, social or athletic activity, the injuries are excluded for workers' compensation coverage, except when such activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by the employment. The test of reasonable expectancy of employment consists of two elements: (1) whether the employee subjectively believes his or her participation in an activity is expected by the employer, and (2) whether the belief is objectively reasonable. (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 146 Cal.App.3d 252.) John Swafford v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Solano County Sheriff Department 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,018 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Workers' compensation benefits are awarded regardless of fault. The crucial issue is whether the injury arose out of the employment. It is not a defense to a workers' compensation claim that the employee was negligent or reckless while acting within the course of employment. (See State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hull) (1952) 38 Cal.2d 650; Litzmann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 303.) (In this case, the employee was riding a motorcycle from an employer-sponsored event to his workplace at speeds of 80 to 100 mph.) Wells Fargo Bank v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Nikolai Goncharoff) 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,017 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE- The medical cause of an ailment is usually a scientific question requiring a decision based upon scientific knowledge and inaccessible to the unguided rudimentary capacities of lay persons. (See Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 83.)[In this case, the court found that there was no substantial medical evidence to support a finding that in addition to an industrial back injury that the onset of diabetes was related to the treatment of the back injury.] The County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Ivett Andrews) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,355 ___Cal.App.4th___

INJURY AOE/COE– Was there substantial medical evidence to support a finding that, in addition to an industrial back injury, the onset of diabetes was related to treatment of the back injury? The County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Ivette Andrews) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,283 [Writ Granted]

INJURY AOE/COE– Commission salesman returning from lunch break– Where the employee does not have a scheduled lunch break or scheduled hours and although commissions were calculated based on the number of gym memberships sold, an employee working on commissions continues to accrue those commissions during authorized break periods. (See Wood Pontiac Cadillac v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (Grado) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 810.) Chapter Seven Trustee John M. Wolfe v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Akain Aleong, Jr.) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,260 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Compensated lunch break exception to the going and coming rule– One exception to the going and coming rule provides compensability for employees' injuries sustained while traveling to or from a compensated lunch break, whether the compensation is paid by hourly wage, by salary, or by commission. (See Western Greyhound Lines v. Industrial Accident Commission (Brooks) (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 517; Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 117.) Chapter Seven Trustee John M. Wolfe v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Akain Aleong, Jr.) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,260 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Dual-purpose exception to the going and coming rule applies to a local commute when the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer not common to ordinary commutes, even if one purpose of the trip is personal to the employee. (See Bramall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 151.) Chapter Seven Trustee John M. Wolfe v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Akain Aleong, Jr.) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,260 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Off-duty recreational, social or athletic activities– Labor Code §3600(a)(9)–Was participation in a pickup basketball game a reasonable expectancy of the employment of a police officer? Was there a subjective belief that his participation in the activity was expected by his employer and was that belief objectively reasonable? City of Stockton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Sean Jenneiahn) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,257 [Writ Granted]

INJURY AOE/COE– Transportation exception to the Going and Coming Rule– An exception to the Going and Coming Rule applies when the employer expressly requires the employee to use his or her personal vehicle as a condition of employment. This exception applies in a situation in which the nature of the job impliedly requires the employee to arrange his or her own transportation on the job to accomplish the purpose of the job. (See County of Tulare v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Caires) (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1247.) Marcy McPherson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, County of Santa Barbara 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,185 [Writ Denied]

INJURY AOE/COE– Commercial Traveler Rule and/or Special Errand Exception–Is an injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident during a vacation period following a business trip using employer-provided transportation a material deviation such that the injury was not compensable? Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (John Moody) 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,107

INJURY AOE/COE– A personally motivated return to the employer's premises during off-duty hours and while not under the direction or control of the employer will not be considered to be within the course of employment. (See Robbins v. Yellow Cab (1948) 13 Cal.Comp.Cases 201.) Juan Manuel Patricio-Cruz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Lee Brothers Industrial Catering 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,025

INJURY AOE/COE– Labor Code §3600(a)For an injury to be compensable, it must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. In the course of employment refers to the time, place and manner of the injury. (See Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729). Arising out of the employment is an injury occurring by reason of a condition or incident of the employment, or it has as its origin a risk connected with the employment. (See Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Gideon) (1953) 41 Cal.2d 676.) Time Warner Entertainment Co., Warner Bros., Zurich American Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Mark Kimberly) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,342

INJURY AOE/COE– Labor Code §3600(a)–An injury arises out of employment when it results from an employment risk, while an injury that results from a "personal" risk is not compensable. Injuries that result from "mixed" or "neutral" risks are considered to be employment related. (See California Compensation & Fire Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Schick) (1968) 68 Cal.2d 175.) [In this case, following an off-premises traffic incident, an altercation between co-employees occurring on the employer's premises resulted from a "mixed risk" such that the injury was industrial.] Time Warner Entertainment Co., Warner Bros., Zurich American Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Mark Kimberly) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,342

INJURY AOE/COE–Going and coming rule–Personal acts for the convenience of the employee that do not create a benefit for the employer do not fall within the special-mission exception to the going and coming rule. [In this case, the employee had two options to submit time cards (either by mail or by personal delivery to a drop box). The employee was not paid for the travel time to personally deliver the time card and was not reimbursed for travel expenses. The compute was after a regular shift with no business purpose and no benefit was created for the employer.] Talent Tree, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tammy Walerstein) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,323

INJURY AOE/COE–Did the injured worker sustain the burden of proof that he sustained a continuous-trauma injury to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment? Randolph McDonald v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, TLG Medical Products 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,332

INJURY AOE/COE– Off-duty activity–The two-prong test to determine whether an employee's activities outside the normal workplace was a reasonable expectancy of employment and therefore compensable: (1) Did the employee subjectively believe that his or her participation in the activity was expected by his or her employer? And (2) was the belief objectively reasonable? (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252.) El Rancho Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Evelyn Seminoff) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,284

INJURY AOE/COE– For an injury to arise out of employment, there must be a causal relationship between employment and injury. (See LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644.) For the injury to occur in the course of employment, it must also occur within the time and space limitations of work. An employee is in the course of employment when he does those reasonable things that his contract with his employer expressly or impliedly permits him to do. (See Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1963) 33 Cal.3d 729.) Petersen Dean Roofing v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Arternio Mejorado) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,272

INJURY AOE/COE– Special mission exception to the going and coming rule–An injury sustained in travel from a required medical examination is industrial under the special mission exception to the going and coming rule. (See Laines v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 872.) The Limited, Victoria's Secret v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Carole Grant) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,250

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and coming rule–Are personal acts considered incidental to employment because they improve the efficiency and morale of the employer and thereby confer a benefit on the employer? Talent Tree, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Tammy Walerstein) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,232

INJURY AOE/COE– Ski Lift Operator Exclusion– Labor Code §3352(f) excludes as an employee any person employed by a ski lift operator to work at a snow ski area who is relieved of and not performing any prescribed duties, while participating in recreational activities on his or her own initiative. In this case, the ski lift operator was injured while skiing down a mountain on his employer's premises. Although the WCJ found that the trip began for personal recreation on his lunch hour, the employee encountered an injured skier partway down the mountain and deviated to report it to the ski patrol. His injury occurred on that portion of the trip and compensation for the injury was found not to be barred by Labor Code §3352(f). Big Bear Mountain Resorts v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Bret Dean) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,207

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and Coming Rule– Simply because the employee used the vehicle for the mutual convenience of the employer and employee, such use does not rise to the status of a requirement of employment, nor does it establish such a special advantage to the employer as to extend the employer-employee relationship to the regular commute from home to the place of work. (See Hinson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 246.) [In this case, a farm laborer was not provided transportation to any job site by the employee and was not paid for time spent prior to arriving at the field for work each day. The vehicle used for transportation to the field was used to store tools overnight and for breaks during the day.] Eleuterio Chavez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Grimmway Enterprises. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,198

PSYCHIATRIC INJURY– To find injury AOE/COE, does Labor Code §3208.3 require that the applicant must be found to have had a "mental disorder" that is diagnosed pursuant to the terminology and criteria of the American Psychiatric Association's Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or other psychiatric diagnostic manuals generally approved and accepted nationally? Metropolitan Water District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (May Woo) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,183

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and Coming Rule– The injured worker's conduct reasonably directed toward the fulfillment of his employer's requirements for the benefit and advantage of the employer is outside the ambit of the going and coming rule. (See Garzoli v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 502.) [In this case, a police officer was injured driving his children to school using a marked police-issued sport utility vehicle that was part of a special community policing unit.] City of Tulare v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Frank Furtaw) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,163

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and Coming Rule– The combination of a personal act performed outside of regular working hours with the performance of acts in furtherance of the employer's business does not defeat a finding that the employee was acting in the course of his or her employment. (See Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,035.) City of Tulare v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Frank Furtaw) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,163

INJURY AOE/COE– Condonation Exception to Horseplay Rule– An injury suffered by an employee while engaged in horseplay is not compensable. (See Hodges v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. I1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 894.) A major exception to cases denying recovery under the horseplay rule is the circumstance in which the employer has actual or constructive knowledge of customary or habitual horseplay among his employees. Under such conditions, the employer's knowledge of the horseplay, without voicing objection, makes it a hazard closely associated with the work, and, as a consequence, an injury incurred under such circumstances arises out of the employment and is compensable. (See Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 669.) State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Willie Nichols, Jr.) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,115

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and Coming Rule Special-Mission Exception– The going and coming rule does not bar recovery for injuries incurred when an employee is performing work-related errands during her commute. (See County of Tulare v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Caires) (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1247.) Hyundai of Santa Maria, Kemper Insurance Companies v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Brandi Thomas) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,107

INJURY AOE/COE– When transportation is furnished by an employer, the commute is generally considered part of the employment. (See Kobe v. Industrial Acc.Comm. (Ruble) (1950) 35 Cal.2d 33.) Hyundai of Santa Maria, Kemper Insurance Companies v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Brandi Thomas) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,107

INJURY AOE/COE– Special-risk exception to the going and coming rule– The special-risk exception applies when (1) but for the employment, the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred, and (2) the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public. (See General Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Chairez) (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595.) [In this case, the employee was instructed to park on an adjacent side street away from the work premises to provide parking near the premises for the public visiting the premises. Applicant was struck by a passing motorist while crossing the street, which was the type of risk the public was subject to daily. Requiring employees to regularly park on a public street does not make the risk of injury quantitatively greater than risks common to the public.] Sharp Coronado Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Laura Brown) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,099

INJURY AOE/COE– Labor Code §3600(a)(7)– Whether an assault at the hands of a third person will be considered one 'arising out of the employment' depends on whether the assault is made by reason of circumstances connected with the employment or without any relation to the employment. (See Western Airlines v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 366.) [In this case, at assault during an uncompensated lunch break was found compensable because the injured worker was attacked while acting as a crew chief attempting to direct an irate worker to the foreman to express his grievance.] Wakeham Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Oracio Perez) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,078

INJURY AOE/COE– An injury sustained while the employee is engaged in an activity that has a dual purpose, serving the business needs of the employer and the personal needs of the employee, occurs in the course of employment. (See Tingey v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (1943) 30 Cal.2d 636.) No inquiry will be made as to whose business the employee was actually engaged in if, at the time of injury, the employee is performing activities expressly or impliedly authorized. (See Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Ind. Acc. Comm.(Hamilton) (1948) 31 Cal.2d 856.) Chuck Cake v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Shawn Reed) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,045

INJURY AOE/COE– Acts performed during work that are necessary for the personal comfort, convenience or welfare of the employee, although not part of the employee's work duties, are within the course of employment while on the employer's premises. The rationale for this is that the course of employment is not broken by acts for the employer's personal comfort, convenience and welfare in that such acts are helpful to the employee's morale and efficiency in performing work duties. (See Western Greyhound Lines v. Ind. Acc. Comm. (Brooks) (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 517.) Chuck Cake v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Shawn Reed) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,045

INJURY AOE/COE– An injury sustained during travel associated with a deposition set by the defendant constitutes a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. [In this case, there was no material deviation by the applicant, who, but for the accident, would have been on time for the deposition but would have been late for the pre-deposition preparation conference with her attorney.] George Geiger v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Celia Wightman) 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,043

INJURY AOE/COE– Commercial Traveler Rule– The Commercial Traveler Rule applies to travel and other aspects of a business trip necessary for sustenance, comfort and safety of the employee, but personal activity not contemplated by the employer may constitute a material departure from the course of employment. American Chem-Tech v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Joe Delatorre) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,235

INJURY AOE/COE– Commercial Traveler Rule– A worker is in the course of employment while off the employer's premises if engaged in an activity that is expressly or implied authorized by the employer. (See Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Janada) (1946) 28 Cal.2d 756.) [In this case, the worker was transferred to a new place of employment and was being reimbursed for all travel expenses at the time she was injured in an automobile accident.] Marriott International v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Imerial McDonald) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,146

INJURY AOE/COE– Voluntary participation in off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity– Labor Code §3600(a)(9)– An injury arising out of voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity is compensable when these activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by the employment. The test of reasonable expectancy of employment consists of two elements: (1) whether the employee subjectively believes his or her participation in an activity is expected by the employer, and (2) whether that belief is objectively reasonable. (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 14 Cal.App.3d 252.) [In this case, the record did not justify a conclusion of significant employer involvement, either direct or indirect, or other subtle pressures to participate. In addition, there was no evidence of activities that would reasonably lead to an expectation that participation was required (e.g., practice on company time, other announcements or activities recognizing, encouraging, or involving employee participation).] Debisue Polsley v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Ikon Office Solutions. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,132

INJURY AOE/COE– Employer-provided transportation exception to the going and coming rule– If the employer provides transportation from the worksite, the worker remains in the employer's control and in the course of employment until the travel home is completed. (See State Lottery Commission v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 311.) Super Shuttle v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Glenn Tate) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,114

INJURY AOE/COE– Commercial Traveler Rule– Did the Appeals Board properly conclude that the decedent was traveling on his employer's business and was therefore regarded as acting within the course of employment during the entire period of his travel assignment? American Chem-Tech v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Joe Delatorre) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,080

INJURY AOE/COE– An injury occurring after hours on the employer's property in furtherance of the employer's business upon the specific instructions of applicant's supervisor is compensable as an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. James J. Stevenson Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Gregorio Zepeda) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,055

INJURY AOE/COE– Special mission exception to the going and coming rule– To support the special mission exception, the activity must be: (1) extraordinary in relation to the worker's ordinary duties; (2) within the course of employment; and (3) undertaken at the employer's request. (See City of San Diego v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Molnar) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1385, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,196.) City of Santa Rosa v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (James Camara) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,038

INJURY A0E/COE– Proof of industrial causation– For an injury to arise out of the employment, it must occur by reason of a condition or incident of employment, i.e., the employment and the injury must be linked causally. The causal connection between employment and the injury need not be the sole cause; it is sufficient if it is a contributing cause. (See Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729.) Contra Costa County v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Teresa Peovich) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,018

INJURY A0E/COE– Assault by a co-employee– Assaults in the course of employment arise out of the employment unless events in the employee's private life are the sole reason for the attack because the occurrence of these events is a recognized and inherent risk of almost any employment. Personal animosity does not necessarily defeat compensability for injuries that occur in the course of employment. (See generally California Comp. & Fire Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Schick) (1968) 68 Cal.2d 157.) Mason Hanhan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, BMW of Riverside. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,004

INJURY AOE/COE– commercial travelers rule– Generally, an employee traveling on the employer's business is regarded as acting within the course of employment during the entire period of travel. (See Wiseman v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 570.) Workers' compensation coverage applies to the travel itself and also to other aspects of the trip reasonably necessary for the sustenance, comfort and safety of the employee. (See LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 17 Cal.4th 644.) [In this case, the applicant was a flight stewardess engage in a sightseeing trip while on a 36-hour layover in Puerto Rico.] Trans World Airlines v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Patricia Hill) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,311

INJURY AOE/COE– Voluntary participation in off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity– An activity will be deemed a reasonable expectancy of the employment if the worker(1) subjectively believed hat participation was expected by the employer; and (2) the worker's belief, viewed objectively, was reasonable. (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App. 3d 252.) Trans World Airlines v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Patricia Hill). 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,311

INJURY AOE/COE– Causal connection between employment and injury– To meet the burden of proof on the issue of compensability, applicant must establish that the injury arose out of the employment and occurred during the course of employment. The words "arising out of employment" have been interpreted to mean that there must be some causal connection between the employment and the injury. (See State Compensation Insurance fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 643.) Ron Jackson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, San Mateo Security Service. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,283

INJURY AOE/COE– An injury arises out of employment when it results from an employment risk, but an injury that results from a"personal risk" is not compensable. A risk is considered personal when an employee is assaulted and injured by a third party with a purely personal grievance, even though the worker's presence at the place of injury made it possible for the assailant to find the victim. (See Rogers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1195.) Ron Jackson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, San Mateo Security Service. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,283

INJURY AOE/COE– Any injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of employment and for the death of any employee if the injury proximately causes death is compensable if at the time of the injury or death the employee is performing a service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment. (See generally Labor Code 3600(a)(2).) California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Jeffrey Willick, deceased) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,282

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and coming rule– If an employer, as an incident of employment, furnishes his employee transportation to and from the place of employment and the means of transportation are under the control of the employer, an injury sustained by the employee during such transportation arises out of and is in the course of employment and is compensable. (See California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commission (1942) 21 Cal. 2d. 461.0 [In this case, the employer did not provide a vehicle for the applicant to drive to make sales calls, but instead would reimburse each salesperson up to $200 per month for expense items including not only mileage but also meals, parking, tolls and additional expenses such as a cell phone. This reimbursement did not constitute an exception to the going and coming rule.] The 4600 Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Ikon Office Equipment (Andrew Quinting) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,266

INJURY AOE/COE– Special mission exception to the going and coming rule– In order to prove the existence of a special mission, the evidence must show: (1) the underlying activity must be special, that is, extraordinary in relation to the employee's routine duties, (2) within the course and scope of the employee's employment, and (3) undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer. (See City of San Diego v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Molnar) (2001) 89 Cak,App.4th 1385, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,196.) The 4600 Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Ikon Office Equipment (Andrew Quinting) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,266

INJURY AOE/COE– Special risk exception to the going and coming rule– The two-pronged test for the application of special risk exception: (1) If 'but for' the employment the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred, and (2) if the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public. (See General Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Chairez) (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595.) [In this case, the employee injured when he slipped and fell on a public sidewalk as he was getting out of his car. The sidewalk was located immediately adjacent to the entrance to his employer's place of business.] Oscar Valdez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Downtown L.A. Nissan. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,155

INJURY AOE/COE– A finding of industrial injury is proper only where the employment plays an active and positive role in the development of the condition. Such a finding must be supported by substantial evidence, which includes both competent lay and medical evidence. (See Twenieth Century Fox-Film Corp. v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 778.) Eugene Lauer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,109

INJURY AOE/COE– Injury as a result of an assault– Workers' compensation benefits will be granted when the assault is fairly traceable to an incident of the employment but will be denied when the assault is the result of personal grievances unconnected with the employment. (See Globe Indemnity Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (2 Cal.2d 8.) Mirjam Gegic v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Vasona Management. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,089

INJURY AOE/COE– Off-duty discharge of police officer hand gun– When the police officer's employer does not require a gun be possessed off-duty, an off-duty gun accident is compensable if it can be established that the employer had a reasonable expectation that the applicant use the gun as he did and that the defendant derived benefit from it. (See County of Santa Cruz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Forbus) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 506 [writ denied].) Richard Anderson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, City of Torrance. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,089

INJURY AOC/COE– Going and coming rule– Extraordinary transits that vary from the norm because the employer requires the use of the worker's own car. The employer's special request, his imposition of an unusual condition, removes the transit from the employee's choice or convenience and places the transit within the ambit of the employer's choice or convenience, restoring the employer-employee relationship. Ayala Corporation v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Martin Gonzalez) 4 WCAB Rptr.10,070

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and Coming Rule– In order to support the special mission exception to the going and coming rule, the underlying activity must be (1) special, that is, extraordinary in relation to the employee's routine duties, (2) within the course of the employee's employment, and (3) undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer. (See City of San Diego v .Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Molnar) (2001) 89 Cal.App. 4th 1385, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,196.) [In this case, the employee, while traveling between job assignments in her personal vehicle was injured during her uncompensated lunch hour when she stopped to pay her car insurance premium. The employer did not request the applicant travel to her insurance agent's office in order to pay her insurance premium and the trip was necessary to accommodate the applicant.] Ann Richard v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,043

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and Coming rule– special mission exception– When a worker does not travel a fixed or standard commute but is rather traveling from the "base" of operations to various and different job sites, those travel times and injuries sustained therein are subject to the special mission exception to the going and coming rule. (See Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150.) Lewis Title Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Lyndol Lee McCalip) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10.039

INJURY AOE/COE– Injuries sustained while an employee is performing tasks within his or her employment contract but outside normal work hours are within the course of employment. See Gardner v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 382.) Paula Wright v. Beverly Fabrics, Inc 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,035

INJURY AOE/COE– Injuries sustained by an employee during emergency efforts to save the employer's property are within the course or employment and compensable under workers' compensation laws. (See Martinez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 15 Cal.3d 982.) Paula Wright v. Beverly Fabrics, Inc 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,035

INJURY AOE/COE– Going and coming rule– Injuries arising from commutes to and from work are not compensable since routine work commute is not viewed as arising out of and in the course of the employment. (See Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smythe) (1985) 40 Cal.3d 751.) Scripps Home Healthcare v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Marcia Marshall) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,025

INJURY AOE/COE– Exceptions to going and coming rule– When an employer requires that the employee have her car available on the job and the employee complies with request by driving her car to the job in a reasonable and normal manner, an injury may be compensable as an exception to the going and coming rule. (See Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 814.) It is well settled neither the going and coming rule nor its exceptions are susceptible to automatic application, each case must be judged on its own unique facts. (See Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150.) [In this case, the applicant was on call 24 hours per day and was on her way to her place of work to complete a chart entry for a visit she made the previous evening. She was injured when she stopped at a supermarket on the way to her place of business and slipped and fell in the supermarket. The special mission exception applied as she was bestowing a special benefit on her employer at the time she was injured andstop at the supermarket was a minor deviation and did not take applicant out of the course of her employment.] Scripps Home Healthcare v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Marcia Marshall) 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,025

INJURY AOE/COE– Assault on employer's premises-An assault even of a personal nature may be compensable where it is fairly traceable to an incident of employment. Whether an assault at the hands of a third person will be considered one "arising out of the employment" depends on whether the assault is made by reason of circumstances connected with the employment or without any relation to the employment. (See Ross v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 949; Rogers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1195.) Adams Funeral Home v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Sylvia Penman) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,338

INJURY AOE/COE– When an employee is in the performance of the duties of his or her employment, the fact that the injury was sustained while the employee was performing the duties of employment in an unauthorized manner does not make the injury one incurred outside the course of employment. (See Rockwell International v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Haylock) (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 291.) THG, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Janie Anderson) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,323

INJURY AOE/COE– The employee's transgression of rules, instructions or established custom is wholly within the sphere of employment. Illegal or even criminal conduct by an employee in the course of his or her employment does not necessarily remove the employee from the course of employment. (See Williams v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 937; Wiseman v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 570.) THG, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Janie Anderson) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,323

INJURY AOE/COE– Entitlement to worker's compensation benefits depends upon whether the injury occurred during efforts to carry out the duties of employment, not whether the worker was authorized to act in that precise manner. A distinction must be made between an unauthorized departure from the course of employment and the performance of a duty in an unauthorized manner. THG, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Janie Anderson) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,323

INJURY AOE/COE– Proof of injury– In this case the WCAB panel concluded that the medical record justified a finding of industrial injury. The contemporaneous medical record confirmed applicant's testimony at the hearing and the WCAB panel declined to adopt the WCJ's observation that the applicant was not credible. (See generally, Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312.) Fremont Compensation Insurance Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Francisco Siliezar) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,311

INJURY AOE/COE– OFF DUTY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY– Objectively reasonable belief that participation in the activity was expected by the employer-Labor Code §3600(a)(9)-There is a two part test to determine whether a recreational injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. An activity will be deemed a reasonable expectancy of the employment, if; (1) the worker subjectively believed that participation was expected by the employer; and (2) the worker's belief that participation was expected, when viewed objectively, was reasonable. Christopher Abraham v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Orange County Fire Authority. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,291

INJURY AOE/COE– OFF DUTY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY– Labor Code §3600(a)(9)– Generally, an injury is not compensable where it arises from a voluntary off duty recreational activity. The exception to this general rule is when the recreational activity is a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required, by the employment (See generally, Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App. 3d 252.) [In this case, the employer provided an onsite work out facility with appropriate equipment and training staff. The injury, which occurred prior to the start of the normal working hours, was found to be compensable since there was a benefit to the employer since the employees could maintain fitness without going off premises during the work day.] American Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Charibel R. Hilario) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,288

INJURY AOE/COE– PERSONAL COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE DOCTRINE– Under the personal comfort or convenience doctrine, the course of employment is not considered broken by certain acts necessary to the life, comfort, and convenience of the employee while at work. The rationale is that such acts, though strictly personal to the employee and not acts of service, are incidental to the service because they improve the efficiency of the employee and thereby benefit the employer. (Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 559; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cardoza) (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 925.) Allied Signal, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Gregory Briggs) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,288

INJURY IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT– Normal bodily movements– If a disability is precipitated by a movement incidental to the employment, the injury is compensable even though the movement is normal. (Pomona Vally Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Flathers) (2000) 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,289 [writ denied].) The causal connection will be deemed established when the injury occurs in the course of employment while the employee is performing normal bodily movements, unless there is a positive showing that the sole cause of the injury is an inherent defect of the employee. (Smith v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 588; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. I.A.C. (Calabresi) (1946) 73 Cal.App. 2nd 492.) Allied Signal, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Gregory Briggs) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,288

INJURY AOE/COE– An injury resulting from an employer's investigation of ultimately unproven criminal charges arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. (See Traub v. Board of Retirement of the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 793.) County of Alameda v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Dennis Lowe) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,262

INJURY RESULTING FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY– Labor Code §3600(a)– There can be no finding of a criminal conspiracy without the commission of an overt act. (See People v. Brown (1991) 226 Cal.App. 3d 1361.) County of Alameda v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Dennis Lowe) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,262

INJURY AOE/COE– Labor Code §3600(a)– Horseplay Rule– In order for an injury to arise out of the employment, the employment and the injury must be linked in some causal fashion. Injuries which are suffered by an employee while engaged in horseplay are not compensable. (See Hodges v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.(1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 894.) The basis for the horseplay rule is that such injuries do not arise out of, i.e., are not proximately caused by the employment. Los Angeles Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Wilbert Leon Tillman) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,200

INJURY AOE/COE– Special mission exception to going and coming rule– In order for the special mission exception to apply, the injured worker must be engaged in a special activity that is: (1) extraordinary in relation to routine job duties, (2) within the course of the employee's employment, and (3) undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer. City of San Diego v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Stephen Molnar) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,196

INJURY AOE/COE– Substantial evidence established injury AOE/COE, which included credible testimony of two independent witnesses, the WCJ's assessment of the mechanics of the injury and the prompt reporting of the injury within moments after its occurrence. Sanger Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Treva Sue Dollar) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,173

INJURY AOE/COE– Special risk exception to the going and coming rule– The special risk exception will apply (1) if "but for" the employment the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred and (2) if the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public. Fremont Compensation Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Gerald Schuman) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,163

INJURY AOE/COE– An employee will be deemed to be within the course of his employment when performing any activity upon his employer's premises during work hours which is expressly or impliedly permitted by the employer, and which may be said to be reasonably contemplated by the employment. (See, Douglas Aircraft Company v .Industrial Acc. Com. (MacDowell) (1957) 47 Cal.2d 903.) Integrated Data Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Dora Small) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,156

INJURY AOE/COE– When the employer acquiesces in actions of the employee with knowledge of their character, a finding that the employee was within the course of his employment at the time of the injury is sustained on the basis that the employer has impliedly authorized the employee's actions. Integrated Data Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Dora Small) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,156

INJURY AOE/COE– Off duty recreational activities– Labor Code 3600(a)(9)– There is a two prong test to determine whether a recreational injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. An activity will be deemed a reasonable expectancy of the employment if the worker: (1) subjectively believed that participation was expected by the employer, and (2) the worker's belief was objectively reasonable. (See Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 252.) [In this case, the applicant (a county deputy sheriff) was injured while playing on the County Sheriff's Department basketball team in the Police Olympics and the Appeals Board reversed the WCJ and found that the participation in the Police Olympics was a reasonable expectation of his employment and the injury was compensable.] County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Joseph Hudson) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,125

INJURY IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT– Going and coming rule– transportation exception– The general rule is that injuries sustained going to and coming from work are not compensable. One of the judicially created exceptions to the rule is when the employer provides the mode of transportation for an employee to travel home. (See California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Acc.Com. (Duffus) (1942) 21 Cal. 2d 461.) XFT Engineering, Inc., v. workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Christine Holzhauser) 3 WCAB Rptr, 10,071

INJURY AOE/COE– Special mission exception to the going and coming rule– When an employee engages in a special mission or activity which is within the course of his employment and which is reasonably undertaken at the request or invitation of the employer, an injury suffered while travelling to and from the place of the activity is also within the course of the employment and is compensable. Alistar Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Philip Barnett) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,024

INJURY AOE/COE– Special risk exception to the going and coming rule– Is an injury compensable when an employee, after finishing his job shift and punching out for the day, is struck by a passing motorist on a public highway while attempted to reach his parked automobile in an open dir field not under the ownership or control of the employer? Fremont Compensation Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Gerald Schuman) 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,024

INJURY AOE/COE–Horseplay–In absence of actual or constructive knowledge by the employer of customary or habitual horseplay, the prime requisite is that the particular horseplay involved was engaged in so frequently or habitually that it had become customary and might fairly be said to be a regular incident of the employment. (See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 669.) Petsmart v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Jeremiah Guile) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,278

INJURY AOE/COE–Going and coming rule special risk exception–Does the special risk exception to the going and coming rule apply to an injury sustained during a regular commute if some aspect of the employment placed the applicant at a peculiar risk of injury or to a risk greater in degree than that to which the general public is exposed? In this case, the employer encouraged its employees not to park in the parking spaces in front of the place of business to keep them available to the public. Does this parking policy place employees at a greater risk of injury due to the fact that they had to cross a street to gain access to the work site? Sharp Coronado Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Laura Brown) 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,288

INJURY AOE/COE–In this case, the applicant sustained an injury while on education and vacation leave on a four-week trip to Guatemala to study Spanish. The trip had been approved by applicant's supervisor who did not know that pursuant to provisions of the Government Code and a collective bargaining agreement, travel outside the state or country by state employees on government training had to be approved by the Governor and the Director of Finance. Susan Buchan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, California Department of Corrections 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,291