In a workers' compensation case involving 3 Stonedeggs, Inc., the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and Braden Nanez, the California Court of Appeal has affirmed the WCAB's decision. The complaint was filed by 3 Stonedeggs, Inc. dba California Sandwich Company and Technology Insurance Company, Inc., administered by Amtrust North America, in Placer County on May 24, 2024. The respondents in this case are the WCAB and Braden Nanez.
The case revolves around an incident that occurred while Braden Nanez was employed as a food service worker for 3 Stonedeggs, Inc. at a remote fire base camp in Happy Camp, California. On October 5, 2020, Nanez left the camp without notifying his manager to purportedly obtain cellular service. While driving approximately 70 miles away from the camp, he was involved in a car accident that resulted in severe injuries including a fractured femur and a closed head injury. Despite evidence suggesting that Nanez had used marijuana prior to the accident, there was no conclusive proof that intoxication caused the accident.
Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled against Nanez’s claim for workers' compensation coverage on grounds that he had materially deviated from his employment by leaving the camp without authorization. However, upon reconsideration, the WCAB applied the "commercial traveler" rule which states that employees traveling on business are considered within their course of employment throughout their travel period unless they engage in activities not reasonably contemplated by their employer.
The WCAB found that Nanez’s use of his personal vehicle to leave camp for cellular service was an activity reasonably expected by his employer given that he was required to spend time away from home where cellular service was inadequate. The Board concluded that his travel did not constitute a distinct departure from his employment duties but rather fell under activities necessary for his comfort and leisure during off-hours.
Petitioners argued that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s findings and claimed that Nanez’s departure from camp constituted a material deviation from his employment since it violated company policy which required employees to notify managers before leaving camp. They also contended that Nanez might have left camp to smoke marijuana—an activity prohibited by company policy.
However, the Court of Appeal upheld the WCAB's decision stating substantial evidence supported its findings. The court emphasized that while employers may have expectations regarding employee conduct during off-hours at remote locations, these do not necessarily preclude compensability under workers' compensation laws if such activities are reasonably foreseeable as part of being away from home for work purposes.
The plaintiffs sought reversal of WCAB's decision but were denied relief as substantial evidence supported findings favoring Nanez’s entitlement to workers' compensation benefits under commercial traveler rule exceptions.
Representing petitioners were Kelly J. Hamilton from Hanna Brophy MacLean McAleer & Jensen along with Scott Davenport from Jones Mayer law firm; Allison J Fairchild represented respondent WCAB; Robert L Davis from Law Offices Larry S Buckley along with Bernhard D Baltaxe represented respondent Braden Nanez; Judges presiding over this matter included Acting Presiding Justice Hull alongside Justices Mesiwala and Wiseman with Case ID C098711/Superior Court No ADJ14015513