CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns an applicant injured in a car accident while commuting to work, with the employer arguing the going and coming rule barred recovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that the applicant's injuries were industrial, holding that the rule did not apply. The Board reasoned that the applicant's use of his personal vehicle to transport tools, the potential for inter-job site travel, and the employer's travel pay policy conferred a benefit to the employer, thus justifying an exception to the rule.
MICHAEL HANCOCK vs. TOWNSEND & SCHMIDT MASONRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND is a workers' compensation case decided in . This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in .
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns an applicant injured in a car accident while commuting to work, with the employer arguing the "going and coming" rule barred recovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that the applicant's injuries were industrial, holding that the rule did not apply. The Board reasoned that the applicant's use of his personal vehicle to transport tools, the potential for inter-job site travel, and the employer's travel pay policy conferred a benefit to the employer, thus justifying an exception to the rule.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.