Legal Opinion

Maher v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

California Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1983No. L.A. 31640PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BIRD, C. J.

Is an employee entitled to compensation benefits for an injury sustained during treatment for a preexisting disease if the treatment is required as a condition of continued employment?

I

Petitioner, Carol Maher, obtained employment as a nurse’s assistant at the San Clemente General Hospital on April 20, 1979. By law, all prospective hospital employees are required to undergo a physical examination which includes a test for tuberculosis. (See Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 22, § 70723.j Maher’s examination took place on April 21, 1979. Two days later, the hospital’s…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Laeng v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Smith v. Seamless Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  5. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Martin Jimeno, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  3. Pacheco Pietri v. Estado Libre AsociadoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1993
  4. Bowen v. Board of Retirement of Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  5. South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015

29 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