Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Leonard Van Stelle, Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 836
Dual purpose rule: if an employee's activity combines personal acts with the business of the employer and the business is a substantial factor, the activity is considered in the course of employment.
Applied to find that applicant's vaccination decision substantially benefited employer and was not purely personal.
From the decision · page 1As the WCJ noted in his report, the parties agree that the employer encouraged but did not
require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because applicant's employer was
concerned about having enough employees available and wanted to reduce the number of
employee absences. The "dual purpose" rule states, "If the employee's activity has a dual purpose,
i.e., if he combines personal acts with the business of his employer, and the business is a substantial
factor, he is considered in the course of his employment." (Leonard Van Stelle, Inc. v. Industrial
Acc. Com. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 836, 840 [28 Cal.Comp.Cases 140].) In this case, applicant's employer
strongly encouraged vaccination with an aim of reducing absences. Applicant's decision to be
vaccinated substantially benefited his employer and was not a purely personal decision.
Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559
Personal convenience doctrine: acts of personal convenience are within the course of employment if reasonably contemplated by the employment.
Applied to find that applicant's vaccination to avoid illness impairing work ability was incidental to employment.
From the decision · page 1In addition, applicant's decision to be vaccinated may be analyzed under the personal
convenience doctrine. "Acts of `personal convenience' are within the course of employment if
Roberts vs. USO Camp Shows Inc. (1949) 14 CCC 136
Exclusive remedy doctrine bars civil action for injuries caused by required inoculations.
Cited as related precedent on inoculation injuries and exclusive remedy.
From the decision · page 6In Roberts vs. USO Camp Shows Inc. (1949) 14 CCC 136 the Second District Court of
Appeal held that where a musician was required to obtain "various inoculations" and contracted
encephalitis as a result, he was barred from pursuing a civil action due to the application of the
exclusive remedy doctrine. This case actually has a related holding that the then-new Labor Code
§ 2802 could not be used to get around the exclusive remedy doctrine.
Maher vs. WCAB (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729
Mandated medical treatment side effects compensable if treatment required for employment.
Cited to support compensability of side effects from employer-required treatment, extended to encouraged vaccination.
From the decision · page 6Similarly, in Maher vs. WCAB (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729; 190 Cal.Rptr 904; 48 CCC 326, the
California Supreme Court held that where mandated testing of a hospital worker was found to be
positive for tuberculosis and where the worker was required to have treatment for tuberculosis in
order to maintain her employment at the hospital, the side-effects of the treatment became
compensable. This case is interesting in that it provides a very complete AOE analysis.
St. Agnes Medical Center vs. WCAB (Cook) (1998) 63 CCC 220
Optional inoculation side effects compensable if employer benefits and encourages vaccination.
Applied to find that optional vaccination encouraged by employer is compensable.
From the decision · page 6More recently, in St. Agnes Medical Center vs. WCAB (Cook) (1998) 63 CCC 220 the
WCAB in a panel decision applies the Maher analysis to a case involving the side-effects of a flu
shot mandated by the employer.