California: Claim Not Barred by Going and Coming Rule; Premises Line Rule Applied

In a recent noteworthy panel decision, the applicant’s injury was not barred by the “going and coming rule” because her claim fell within the premises line rule. Here’s our headnote and the PDF for the decision.

Ricarda Duran, aka Sonia Tineo Toledo, Applicant v. Priority Workforce, Inc. dba MVP Payroll Financing LLC, LCF Priority Business Services Inc., United Wisconsin Insurance Company administered by Next Level Administrators, Defendants

W.C.A.B. No. ADJ15799667—WCJ Andrew Malagon (LAO); WCAB Panel: Chair Zalewski, Commissioners Dodd, Razo

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board Panel Decision)

Opinion Filed March 10, 2023

Publication Status:  CAUTION:  This decision has not been designated as a “significant panel decision” by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Practitioners should proceed with caution when citing to this panel decision and should also verify the subsequent history of the decision, as these decisions are subject to appeal. WCAB panel decisions are citeable authority, particularly on issues of contemporaneous administrative construction of statutory language [see Griffith v. WCAB (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 1260, 1264, fn. 2, 54 Cal. Comp. Cases 145]. However, WCAB panel decisions are not binding precedent, as are en banc decisions, on all other Appeals Board panels and workers’ compensation judges [see Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1418, 1425 fn. 6, 67 Cal. Comp. Cases 236]. While WCAB panel decisions are not binding, the WCAB will consider these decisions to the extent that it finds their reasoning persuasive [see Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal. Comp. Cases 228, fn. 7 (Appeals Board En Banc Opinion)]. LexisNexis editorial consultants have deemed this panel decision noteworthy because it does one or more of the following: (1) Establishes a new rule of law, applies an existing rule to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in other decisions, or modifies, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule; (2) Resolves or creates an apparent conflict in the law; (3) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest; (4) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of workers’ compensation law or the legislative, regulatory, or judicial history of a constitution, statute, regulation, or other written law; and/or (5) Makes a contribution to the body of law available to attorneys, claims personnel, judges, the Board, and others seeking to understand the workers’ compensation law of California.

Disposition: Reconsideration is granted, the December 5, 2022 Findings and Order is rescinded, and a new Findings of Fact is substituted.

Injury AOE/COE—Material Deviations—Premises Line Doctrine—WCAB, granting reconsideration and rescinding WCJ’s decision, held that applicant suffered injury AOE/COE to her head on 1/3/2022 when she was hit by car while waiting in employer’s parking lot for ride home from work after her shift ended, when WCAB found that applicant’s injury was not barred by “going and coming rule” because her claim fell within premises line rule stating that injuries sustained by employee while going to or coming from workplace upon premises owned or controlled by employer are generally deemed to have arisen out of and in course of employment, that waiting for ride home from work was not deviation from employment, much less substantial or material deviation precluding compensation, and that there was no practical difference between employee waiting for ride while still on employer’s premises and injury suffered by employee exiting building to go to parked car for commute home. [See generally Hanna, Cal. Law of Emp. Inj. and Workers’ Comp. 2d §§ 4.115, 4.116, 4.130, 4.152[1]; Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law, Ch. 10, § 10.05[2], [3][b], [8].]

© Copyright 2023 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.