ADJ16567838 · March 13, 2026

Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the going and coming rule applies because applicant's commute was not local, did not have fixed hours, and defendant's evidence was unreliable.

From the decision · page 5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

Applicant's commute was approximately 60 miles each way, not local.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The going and coming rule applies only to local commutes; this fact shows the rule does not apply here.

From the decision · page 5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

Applicant did not work fixed hours; arrival and departure times varied daily.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Fixed hours are required for the going and coming rule to apply; this fact shows the rule does not apply here.

From the decision · page 5In addition, the applicant did not work "fixed hours," since his starting time, ending time, and hours worked varied each day. (Applicant's Exh. 2, at p. 61.) His timecard for the week of the

Defendant's timecard and payroll evidence were unreliable and contradicted by testimony and accident facts.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Unreliable evidence undermines defendant's burden to prove the going and coming rule applies.

From the decision · page 6We find it necessary to note that defendant relied on questionable evidence to support its contention that the going and coming rule applies. Defendant's Exhibit T, which purports to be the timecard for applicant and fourteen of his co-workers, indicates that all fifteen workers worked for eight hours, on Friday, May 27, 2022. (Defendant's Exh. T.) In fact, three of the individuals listed on the timecard had been killed the day before in the May 26, 2022 rollover crash.3 (Applicant's Exh. 2, at p. 3.) Many of the remaining workers were injured in the same accident. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) the applicant and the other workers involved in the crash did not return to work the next day.

Labor Code 5705

Burden of proof on party asserting going and coming rule to establish it by preponderance of evidence.

Defendant failed to meet burden to prove going and coming rule applies.

From the decision · page 5The sole issue at trial in the present matter was the applicability of the going and coming rule to applicant's claim of injury. (3/4/24 Minutes of Hearing, at p. 2.) The burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue, and all parties must meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Lantz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 298, 313 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 488]; Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1204 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 289].) Here, defendant is challenging the legal conclusions reached by the WCJ regarding the applicability of the going and coming rule. Thus, the burden of proof was on the defendant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the going and coming rule bars compensability. (Lab. Code, § 5705, 3202.5; Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 124, 128 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 563] ["the burden of proof [is] on the one for whom the service was rendered"].)

Labor Code 3600(a)

Injury must arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable.

Applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment because going and coming rule does not apply.

From the decision · page 4Labor Code section 36001 imposes liability on an employer for workers' compensation

Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 155

Going and coming rule excludes injuries during local commute to fixed place of business at fixed hours absent special circumstances.

Applicant's commute was not local nor fixed hours, so rule does not apply.

From the decision · page 5(Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 157.) In Hinojosa and the opinions that followed it, the rule was established that the going and

Applicant's commute was not local and did not have fixed hours, supported by applicant's testimony and payroll records.

From the decision · page 5Here, the evidence demonstrates that the going and coming rule was inapplicable because the applicant did not participate in a "local commute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours," as required for the rule to apply. First, his commute does not fit within the definition of "local"2 since applicant testified that he traveled in the van for an hour or more in each direction, from Yuba City, California, located in Sutter County, to Winters, California, located in Yolo County. (3/4/24 Transcript of Record, at pp. 27-28.) As the Court noted, the distance from the work site to applicant's home in Yuba City "was approximately 60 miles" and thus outside the definition of "local." (the applicant, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1169.)

Defendant's timecard and payroll evidence were unreliable and contradicted by testimony and accident facts.

From the decision · page 6We find it necessary to note that defendant relied on questionable evidence to support its contention that the going and coming rule applies. Defendant's Exhibit T, which purports to be the timecard for applicant and fourteen of his co-workers, indicates that all fifteen workers worked for eight hours, on Friday, May 27, 2022. (Defendant's Exh. T.) In fact, three of the individuals listed on the timecard had been killed the day before in the May 26, 2022 rollover crash.3 (Applicant's Exh. 2, at p. 3.) Many of the remaining workers were injured in the same accident. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) the applicant and the other workers involved in the crash did not return to work the next day.