CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8608456 MF\nADJ8608504\nADJ8523009\nADJ8551858\nADJ8609068
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

HORACIO CABRERA, Deceased MARIBEL BARAJAS, Widow, Guardian Ad\nLitem for LITZY CABRERA, LESLY\nCABRERA, MARIA CABRERA AND\nKASSANDRA CABRERA; BRIANNA\nCABRERA, for herself and Guardian Ad Litem for STEFANI ARIAS, ANTONIO SOLARES, MODESTO DOMINGUEZ, JOHNATHAN ALONSO vs. MV CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of a ruling finding a fatal motor vehicle accident and related injuries industrial. The employer argued the administrative law judge erred in admitting evidence and presuming compensability due to a failure to issue timely denial notices. The employer also contended the "going and coming rule" barred the claims as the accident occurred during a standard commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings that the injuries were industrial and not barred by the going and coming rule, largely adopting the judge's reasoning.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionRulings and Order Admitting EvidenceFindings of FactMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuriesFatal Industrial InjuryDependentsNotice of Denial
References
0
Case No. ADJ10761099
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

TANYA WARD vs. SARTI ENTERPRISES, LLC, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured by a car while investigating a disturbance on employer property after her shift. The defendant argued the injury was not compensable due to the "going and coming rule," asserting the applicant was not acting within the scope of employment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the injury industrial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's investigation conferred a direct benefit to the employer, fitting the "dual purpose" exception to the going and coming rule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFront Desk ManagerRight ShoulderRight ElbowUpper ExtremitiesGoing and Coming RuleDual Purpose ExceptionIndustrial CausationEmployer Benefit
References
10
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
10
Case No. ADJ6655702
Regular
Mar 18, 2010

GERICK CATUGDA vs. WINKLEBLACK CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY c/o APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This case concerns whether the "going and coming rule" bars applicant's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained during his commute. The defendant argued the rule applied, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied their petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's finding that the applicant's employment required him to have transportation for multiple job sites, creating an exception to the rule. This decision aligns with established precedent, where transportation necessity for the employer's benefit removes the commute from the rule's exclusion.

Going and coming ruleindustrial injuryconstruction laborerhead injurybrain injurypsyche injuryspine injuryribs injurypelvis injuryarms injury
References
9
Case No. SAC 357129
Regular
Sep 24, 2007

MICHAEL HANCOCK vs. TOWNSEND & SCHMIDT MASONRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a car accident while commuting to work, with the employer arguing the "going and coming" rule barred recovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that the applicant's injuries were industrial, holding that the rule did not apply. The Board reasoned that the applicant's use of his personal vehicle to transport tools, the potential for inter-job site travel, and the employer's travel pay policy conferred a benefit to the employer, thus justifying an exception to the rule.

going and coming ruleindustrial injuryautomobile accidentcommutebrick tendercourse of employmentWCJpetition for reconsiderationemployer benefitwork materials
References
1
Case No. ADJ10492342
Regular
Apr 27, 2023

JASMINE ORBERG vs. INTER SOURCES, INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision, finding applicant Jasmine Orberg was an employee of Inter Sources, Inc. at the time of her injury. The WCAB determined that Orberg's activities in the training program, including interacting with customers and providing status updates, established an employer-employee relationship under the Borello standard. Furthermore, the WCAB ruled that the "going and coming" rule did not bar her claim because the employer provided transportation, which falls under an exception to the rule. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInternshipMotor Vehicle AccidentGoing and Coming RuleEmployer-employee relationshipBorello standardIndependent contractorPrima facie caseAgencyProvided transportation
References
18
Case No. ADJ7516841
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Karen Shaw's claim for workers' compensation benefits after she slipped and broke her wrist and ankle while walking to a bookstore in San Francisco. The defendant, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services, Inc., argued the injury was not compensable, citing the going-and-coming rule and the bunkhouse rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Shaw's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the commercial traveler rule. The Board determined that Shaw's walk, while on an extended business trip and on call, was a reasonable expectancy of her employment, even if considered personal activity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan
References
11
Case No. ADJ14015513
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

BRADEN NANEZ vs. 3 STONEDEGGS, INC., TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board rescinded the initial Findings and Order, finding the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service. The Board applied the commercial traveler rule, determining the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claim is not barred by the going and coming rule or intoxication, and the applicant sustained a fractured right femur. Issues of traumatic brain injury and bruised lung are deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionFindings and OrderApplicantEmployerAdjustedAdjudication NumberRedding District OfficeInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)
References
14
Case No. ADJ7304028
Regular
Jan 16, 2013

ROBERT DECOURCEY, JR. vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior finding of injury for Robert Decourcey, Jr. This decision follows a Court of Appeal ruling that a shift swap did not constitute a "special mission" exception to the going and coming rule. Therefore, Decourcey's injury sustained during his commute after the shift exchange was not deemed industrial. The applicant is awarded nothing for his claim except for potential reimbursement of medical-legal costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Remittiturgoing and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial risk exceptionshift swapcorrectional officerindustrial injuryCourt of AppealPetition for Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ11265619
Regular
Jun 03, 2019

KIMBERLEE ZEIGLER-BAINBRIDGE vs. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous decision that barred her claim under the "going and coming rule." The Board found that the initial hearing and decision did not adequately develop evidence regarding other potential exceptions to the rule, particularly those related to the employer's requirement for the employee to furnish transportation. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to fully explore these exceptions and ensure due process for the applicant.

Going and coming ruleZenithGriffinPetition for ReconsiderationWCJapplicantdefendantemploymentcommutecompensation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 6,707 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational