Ki B. Choi, vs. Union Lee Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund,

Union Lee Construction, Inc. and the State Compensation Insurance Fund were involved in a case in which Ki B. Choi, an employee of Union Lee Construction, Inc., sought workers' compensation for an injury he sustained while driving home from work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that the injury was not compensable under the going and coming rule, as the special mission/errand exception did not apply, and the commercial traveler rule was waived.

UNION LEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, KI B. CHOI, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKI B. CHOI, Applicant,vs.UNION LEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.;STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ6490654OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION            Applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 10, 2009 Findings and Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a construction laborer on July 7, 2007, did not sustain industrial injury.            Applicant contends the WCJ erred in finding no injury, arguing that his injury falls within the special mission/errand exception to the going and coming rule, that his injury occurred within a reasonable time and space from the employment so as to render the injury compensable, that the rule of liberal construction should be used to find his injury compensable, that his injury should be presumed compensable pursuant to Labor Code section 5402, and that his injury is compensable under the commercial traveler rule.            We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and defendant’s Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter.            For the reasons expressed in the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny applicant’s petition for reconsideration.            It is well established that an injury sustained by an employee during a normal commute to or from work is not compensable, absent special circumstances. (Hinojosa V. WVorkmen’s Comp. , Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) This principle has been labeled the going and coming rule. During such commuting, the employer-employee relationship is considered suspended because the employer does not pay for the employee’s services, has no control over the employee, and the employee provides no be

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.