The opinion
*575 SPENCER, P. J.
I dissent. I would uphold the decision of the board.
Our review of the board’s decision involves recognition of two basic considerations: First, that it has long been the policy, at both the administrative level and in the courts, to liberally construe the workers’ compensation law to provide coverage whenever possible, thereby protecting the injured worker. (Dimmig v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 860, 867 ; Hinojosa v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 155 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 538 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 750 ] and Lefebvre v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 745, 750 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 246 ].) Second, the appellate standard of review in matters such as this is that of substantial evidence; as was explained in Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 158, 162 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 588 P.2d 806 ], “judicial review of decisions of the WCAB on factual matters is limited to determining whether the decision, based on the entire record, is supported by substantial evidence. (§ 5952, subd. (d) [Labor Code]. Le Vesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 ). ..
The legal principles which govern the instant case are clear. The “going and coming” rule was judicially created in this state in 1916 in Ocean Acc. etc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 173 Cal. 313, 322 [ 159 P. 1041 ]. There it was declared that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, employees are not covered by workmen’s compensation while “going and coming” to and from their places of employment. That is the rule today, with certain important exceptions taking into account present realities.
While normally routine commuting—and injuries which occur during that commuting—are outside workers’ compensation coverage, “[a]n injury suffered by an employee during his regular commute is compensable if he was also performing a special mission for his employer. [Citation.] The employee’s conduct is ‘special’ if it is ‘extraordinary in relation to routine duties, not outside the scope of employment.’ [Citation.] The special mission rule ‘is ordinarily held inapplicable when the only special component is the fact that the employee began work earlier or quit work later than usual.’ [Citation.]” (General Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595, 601 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 417 , 546 P.2d 1361 ].)
*576 In determining whether the particular trip of the employee is “special” in the sense of being an integral part of the employment relationship, and thus included within coverage, the analysis in Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d 150 , I find both helpful and persuasive. It was there stated that “[i]n substance the courts have held non-compensable the injury that occurs during a local commute enroute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours in the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances.
“On the other hand, many situations do not involve local commutes enroute to fixed places of business at fixed hours. These are the extraordinary transits that vary from the norm because the employer requires a special, different transit, means of transit, or use of a car, for some particular reason of his own. When the employer gains that kind of a particular advantage, the job does more than call for routine transport to it; it plays a different role, bestowing a special benefit upon the employer by reason of the extraordinary circumstances. The employer’s special request, his imposition of an unusual condition, removes the transit from the employee’s choice of convenience and places it within the ambit of the employer’s choice or convenience, restoring the employer-employee relationship.” ( 8 Cal.3d 157 ; italics added.)
Thus the “going and coming” rule only excludes from coverage injuries occurring during the course of a routine, ordinary commute by the employee. The issue before us is whether it can reasonably be concluded that applicant. Hancock was so engaged when he sustained severe injuries.
There was substantial evidence that the applicant was employed loading and unloading trucks and performing other similar tasks for his employer, a concern conducting business in the oil fields on a 24-hour a-day basis. Hancock ordinarily worked from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., putting in a 40-hour week. He had been informed, however, at the outset of his employment that he would often be called to work at odd hours when needed. The employee was, in fact, given a “beeper” so that he might be reached by the employer at any hour and summoned to work. Hancock testified below that these summons had occurred often during his employment, and that the tasks required when he arrived varied from something taking only a few minutes to something involving many hours of work. On the date of injury, July 5, 1979, Hancock was responding to a request by the employer (whether by “beeper” or *577 prearrangement is uncertain) that he come to work at 5 a.m., and during the transit to his place of employment the injuries occurred.
The compensation judge identified certain factors which persuaded him that the applicant’s transit fell within the special rather than ordinary category and that therefore his injuries were compensable: They were (1) that the employee was “on call” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; (2) that the employee’s normal hours were from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; (3) that reporting at 5 a.m. was not an ordinary report time. The judge relied, in making his determination, on two cases which found injuries compensable under similar circumstances. In Schreifer v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 289 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 391 P.2d 832 ], the employee was a deputy sheriff who was, as the applicant herein, “on call” and who was, at the time of injury, in transit to his place of employment in response to a summons for reasons never identified in the record but presumed to be compelling at a time earlier than his usual shift. In Los Angeles Jewish etc. Council v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 65 [ 209 P.2d 991 ], the employee, a rabbi and a librarian, was at the time of injury in transit to his place of employment at an unusual hour per his employer’s request, to perform special tasks.
In discussing the significance of an employee’s “on call” status, Schreifer pointed out that “the fact that a particular mission is encompassed within the terms of hire, even contemplated at the time the employment began, is not determinative. Nearly every employment relationship contemplates that extraordinary needs may arise and must be met. ‘Special’ means extraordinary in relation to routine duties, not outside the scope of the employment.” (61 Cal.2d p. 295; italics added.) Nothing in General Insurance, supra, 16 Cal.3d 595 , compels us to order the award annulled; the facts in that case were readily distinguishable in that the employee was making his routine commute somewhat earlier than usual for no special reason requested by the employer.
The authorities on workers’ compensation law discuss employment subject to call as an element in a particular case which is not determinative but requires further analysis. It is deemed important whether the employee’s transit was in response to a special request and what the request was for. (See, 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law (1972) § 16.12; 2 Hanna, Cal. Law of Employee Injuries and Workmen’s Compensation (2d ed. 1981) § 9.03.) It is significant that the Larson text explains the Schriefer decision as based on the fact that there was “a very substantial variation in the employee’s usual hours” (Larson, *578 supra, § 16:12, p. 4-143) and observes that an off-premises journey may be brought within the course of employment “by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances” and thus renders the journey itself “an integral part of the service [required of the employee] ...” (§ 16.10, p. 4-123). Hanna notes that a mission is deemed special; i.e., substantial, when its performance requires a special trip, or the regular trip at a special time. (2 Hanna, supra, § 9.03 [3][c][iv], pp. 9-42, 9-43.) (Italics added.)
I conclude, on the basis of the record before us, that there was substantial evidence in support of the decision awarding applicant Hancock compensation on the basis that his transit was within the ambit of either the special mission exception to the “going and coming” rule or that the requirements of his employer on this occasion rendered the off premises journey part of the job. In addition, while not as fully factually developed as it could have been, the record gives rise to the argument that 24-hour call reasonably contemplates journeys at hours on occasion when public transportation would not be available and in all likelihood the employee would be compelled to use his own automobile to respond to the employer’s request. Such circumstances, of course, dictate coverage for workers’ compensation benefits. I reiterate that our judicial task is not to search out exclusionary facts but to bring the employee within the protection of workers’ compensation laws if it is reasonable to do so. In the case at bench, in my view, reason compels affirming the decision of the board awarding the benefits to applicant Hancock.
The petition of respondent Hancock for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 10, 1981. Bird, C. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.