Narrative Opinion Summary
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna) petitioned against the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) decision to award compensation to Amado Coronado, who sustained an injury while commuting after work. Coronado, who was paraplegically injured, was returning home after a spontaneous social gathering with coworkers, including an employer partner, where alcohol was consumed. Aetna argued the injury was non-compensable under the going-and-coming rule of the Workers' Compensation Act and that no exceptions to this rule applied. The court evaluated whether the social event could be considered within the course of employment under the McCarty exception, which requires the employer to have fostered a culture of such activities. Testimony and evidence indicated that the gatherings were informal, infrequent, and not organized or funded by the employer, negating the exception. The court further assessed the applicability of Labor Code section 3600, subdivision (a)(8), regarding off-duty activities, which requires a reasonable expectation or implied requirement of participation. The absence of subjective or objective employer pressure led the court to determine that the injury was not compensable, resulting in the annulment of the WCAB's decision and remanding for proceedings consistent with this judgment. The Supreme Court declined to review the case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exceptions to the Going-and-Coming Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Exceptions to the going-and-coming rule exist when an injury arises from non-routine travel conducted for the employer's benefit. The court found no applicable exceptions in this case, leading to the conclusion that the injury was not compensable.
Reasoning: The record does not explain the time gap between leaving the warehouse and the accident, which occurred between 11:30 p.m. and 2 a.m. Evidence suggests that Avilez was driving the wrong way on Highway 99 when the collision occurred.
Going-and-Coming Rule in Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The going-and-coming rule generally prohibits compensation for injuries sustained while traveling to and from work, unless exceptions apply. In this case, the rule was applied to bar the workers' compensation claim as the injury occurred during routine commuting after a non-work-related social event.
Reasoning: Aetna argues that the going-and-coming rule prevents compensation for the applicant's claim, asserting that no exceptions apply.
Off-Duty Recreational Activities and Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Injuries sustained during off-duty recreational activities are compensable only if participation is a reasonable expectation of employment or expressly or impliedly required. The court found no such expectation or requirement in this case.
Reasoning: This section addresses compensability for injuries during 'off duty' recreational, social, or athletic activities, stipulating that such injuries are compensable only if the activities are a reasonable expectation of employment or are expressly or impliedly required.
Subjective and Objective Tests for Employer Pressuresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ezzy test requires both a subjective belief by the employee and objective evidence of employer pressure for off-duty participation to be compensable. The court found no evidence of subjective or objective pressure, thus barring compensation.
Reasoning: The Ezzy test first requires assessing the subjective belief of the employee, which is easily met if the employee claims participation felt mandatory.