State of California, Department of Corrections; State Compensation Insurance Fund Robert Decourcey, Jr. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAROBERT DECOURCEY, JR., Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case No. ADJ7304028(San Bernardino District Office)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER REMITTITUR On August 28, 2012, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, filed its unpublished Opinion in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Decourcey) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 767. The Court annulled our Order Denying Reconsideration dated June 17, 2011, and stated: “An agreement between two employees to exchange shifts cannot convert a routine commute into a special mission. While there are many exceptions to the going and coming rule, it would be an unwarranted expansion of either the special mission or the special risk exceptions to conclude that Decourcey in this case was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident” (77 Cal.Comp.Cases at 774). The Supreme Court denied applicant’s Petition for Review on November 20, 2012. This is our Decision After Remittitur. Applicant, while employed as a correctional officer on January 7, 2009, claimed to have sustained a severe industrial injury. His normal shift was from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, he had agreed to swap shifts with another officer who had to take his grandmother to the hospital. He left home at 4:30 a.m. to work the morning shift. On his way to the Pilot Rock Conservation Camp in the San Bernardino mountains, he hit a patch of black ice and spun off into a ravine, sustaining severe injuries. On April 22, 2011, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued a Findings of Fact, finding that applicant had sustained an industrial injury. hi her Opinion on Decision, she stated , that the injury was not bar
