Gunter v. Mersereau
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtLangtry, J.
This appeal raises the sole issue of whether a person employed to care for an invalid in the invalid’s home comes within the exclusion from workmen’s compensation coverage for “domestic servants.” ORS 656.027(1). The trial court affirmed the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s order denying coverage.
Claimant was employed to care for a stroke victim who required round-the-clock attention. Previously, she had worked as a nurse’s aide. Her duties at defendant’s home during the eight hour shift she worked can be summarized as follows: giving oral medication, heating dinner and feeding it to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Carsten v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Weatherford v. ArterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1951
- Anderson v. UelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- Hardware Dealers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. KingTexas Supreme Court · 1968
- Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. KingCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bennerstrom v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- Everist v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1990
- Griebel v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
- Smith v. FordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
- Connor v. ZelaskiColorado Court of Appeals · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.