Court of Appeal reviews required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule
- Posted By: Harvey Brown
- August 1, 2017
This is a published decision of the court of appeal
This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.
The applicant was an in-home caretaker for the department of Social Services. She was paid every two weeks for all work performed. She was not paid for transportation between locations.
On the date of injury she finished her first assignment and was riding her bike to the second assignment when she was involved in a car accident. The employer denied the claim.
The claim was heard on only the issues of employment and AOE-COE. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found the claim compensable because the required vehicle exception applied to the going and coming rule.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ruled the claim was barred by the going and coming rule.
When a writ was filed the WCAB filed a brief stating that they were incorrect and the required vehicle exception applied. However the employer still disputed this.
The appeals court gives one of the best summaries of this line of cases. They review Hinojosa but indicate this is directed to a commute between home and work. They then review cases where the employee is required to commute between job sites. They indicated that transiting between job sites was part and parcel of her job and therefore, compensable.
Case: Zhu v. WCAB (Department of Social Services)