California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No. ADJ582920.
—IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on January 6, 2015, 232 Cal.App.4th 1126;___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ be modified in the following particulars and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 10, the first full sentence of the first paragraph reads [232 Cal.App.4th 1135, advance report, 1st par., lines 3 and 4]: "There is no dispute in this case about the facts that pertain to the premises line rule.” The sentence should be replaced with: “There is no dispute in this case about the facts that are material to the premises line rule.”
On page 14 [232 Cal.App.4th 1139, advance report, above Disposition], the following paragraph should be inserted as the last paragraph of the “Analysis” section:
Finally, we reject JT3’s contention (citing Lantz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 298, 314 [171 Cal.Rptr.3d 829]) that the California Supreme Court decision in Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 40 Cal.3d 345, precludes liberal construction of the workers' compensation law in regard to determining whether the premises line rule applies. Not only did the court in Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. specifically state that the premises line rule was not “invoked” by the facts of that case, in a lengthy footnote the court explained the benefits of the premises line rule while citing numerous cases in which the premises line rule had been ...