Skidgel

Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

Good Law
234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 528·24 Cal. App. 5th 574
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 2018A151224California8,357 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

*577 The 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 insurance coverage. ( Id. , § 631.) The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) ruled in a precedent decision that, because a close-family-member IHSS service provider under the Direct Payment Mode is employed by the recipient, the provider is subject to the *578 exclusion of Unemployment Insurance Code section 631. 1 ( *531 Matter of Caldera (2015) CUIAB Precedent Benefit Dec. No. P-B-507 ( Caldera ).)

Appellant Tamara Skidgel, an IHSS provider for her daughter, challenged the validity of Caldera , arguing government entities were joint employers with the recipient,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.