Legal Opinion

McCallister v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 25, 1976No. Civ. 48040PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

The compensation judge found petitioner, the applicant in the underlying compensation proceeding, to have been “engaged in household domestic service” (Lab. Code, § 3352 subd. (e)) for less than 52 hours per week (Lab. Code, § 3358.5) and thus to have been an employee excluded from compensation coverage.

The appeals board, one member dissenting, concurred without further comment.

We have issued a writ of review and examined the entire record, including transcripts of the testimony.

We conclude that, inasmuch as the applicant’s service was solely to care for and wait upon an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moody v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. West v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Lacoe v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. McAlpinOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  2. Bennerstrom v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIESCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  3. Bennerstrom v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  4. Viola v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Everist v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1990

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API