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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
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
Case No. ADJ7269472
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

SHARON EWEGBEMI vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury in the course of employment. The applicant argued exceptions to the going-and-coming rule, including special mission, dual purpose, special risk, and required vehicle exceptions. Reconsideration was granted because crucial hearing minutes and summary of evidence were missing from the record, and the original WCJ was unavailable. This prevents the Board from issuing a just decision and necessitates further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionRequired Vehicle ExceptionCourse of EmploymentSidewalk InjuryConstructive PremisesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
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
Case No. ADJ10204439
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

JEFF SMITH vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Deputy Sheriff Jeff Smith's injury, sustained en route to mandatory employer-ordered training, fell under the "special mission" exception to the "going and coming rule." The training's deviation in location, time, and nature from Smith's regular duties satisfied the three-part test for a special mission. Therefore, Smith's injury was deemed to have arisen out of and occurred in the course of employment.

going and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial errand exceptionDeputy Sherifftraffic investigation classBen Clark Training Centermotor vehicle accidentcourse of employmentroutine dutiesemployer's benefit
References
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
Case No. ADJ12249871
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

ISABEL AKERLUNDH (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PERMISSIBLY SELF INSURED

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by the applicant's dependents following the denial of their workers' compensation claim. The applicant, Isabel Akerlundh, a Behavioral Health Specialist, died in a car accident while commuting to work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the injury was barred by the "going and coming rule." The Board found no evidence that the applicant was performing services for her employer or that an exception to the rule applied to her commute, as county vehicles were available and use of a personal vehicle was not required.

GOING AND COMING RULECOURSE OF EMPLOYMENTARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEREPORT AND OPINION ON DECISIONBEHAVIORAL HEALTH SPECIALISTCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDEPERSONAL VEHICLE USE
References
Case No. ADJ10147686
Regular
Jun 12, 2017

TOBY LAPESARDE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant's injury compensable. The Board rescinded the original findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the "special risk" exception to the going-and-coming rule applies. The WCJ initially found the injury compensable under the "special mission" exception, but the Board noted credibility issues regarding the applicant's assertion of mandatory overtime. The applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while commuting home after working a double shift.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLicensed Vocational NursePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionMandatory OvertimeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,624 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