Legal Opinion
Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided June 14, 2018No. A151224PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBruiniers, J.
*577The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 12300 et seq. ) provides in-home services to elderly or disabled persons so that they may avoid institutionalization. For purposes of the state unemployment insurance system, IHSS service recipients are considered employers of their service providers if the providers are directly paid by the program or the recipient receives IHSS funds to pay their providers (hereafter, Direct Payment Mode). ( Unemp. Ins. Code, § 683.) Generally, an employee of a close family member (child, parent or spouse) is excluded from unemployment…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Wilcox v. BirtwhistleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- North Bay Regional Center v. MaldonadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.California Supreme Court · 2021
- Goldstein v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Goldstein v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2019
- Reilly v. Marin Housing AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020