Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a mandate petition challenging the board's decision denying his request for unemployment compensation benefits. The trial court subsequently issued a writ of mandate directing that plaintiff receive the requested benefits. The court reversed, concluding that plaintiff's actions in exceeding his break times on four separate occasions and then falsifying his time sheets constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256. Plaintiff may not receive unemployment compensation benefits because he committed misconduct within the meaning of section 1256.View "Irving v. California Uninsurance Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Norasingh, a woman in her twenties, suffers from medical and mental health problems, including congenital brain malformation, mental retardation, diabetes, asthma, and epileptic seizures. Norasingh lives with her parents and younger sister. In 2009, her parents became her limited conservators, entitled to determine her residence and make her medical and educational decisions. The conservatorship limits Norasingh’s rights to marry, enter into contracts, and control her social and sexual relationships. In 2004, she began to receive benefits from the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program administered by the California Department of Social Services. She was determined to be eligible for 32.90 IHSS hours, with no benefit for protective supervision. Norasingh’s mother is her paid IHSS provider and requested protective supervision hours because Norasingh was having seizures five times a day. In 2005, Contra Costa County Human Services determined that Norasingh was eligible for protective supervision, based on the opinion of one of Norasingh’s treating physicians, who stated that she had a history of wandering and poor judgment. Based on a report by a social worker, in 2011 an administrative law judge concluded that Norasingh was no longer eligible for protective supervision. The trial court affirmed. The appeals court reversed, finding that a persistent misconception regarding the scope of Norasingh’s mental impairment undermined the eligibility determination.View "Norasingh v. Lightbourne" on Justia Law