Rentzer v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FLEMING; ROTH, P.J., and COMPTON
• Citation: 108 Cal.Rptr. 336,32 Cal.App.3d 604
• Parties: Gail E. RENTZER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY, Respondent; VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 40694.
• Decision Date: 24 May 1973

Page 336

108 Cal.Rptr. 336 32 Cal.App.3d 604 Gail E. RENTZER, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY, Respondent;
VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 40694. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California. May 24, 1973.

Page 337

[32 Cal.App.3d 605] Rentzer, Segall & Gilbert, Inc., by Robert D. Rentzer, Hollywood, for petitioner and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward M. Belasco and Blanche C. Bersch, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

[32 Cal.App.3d 606] FLEMING, Associate Justice.

Mandamus. Gail Rentzer suffered an ectopic pregnancy ¹ when gestation occurred in one of her fallopian tubes, a part of the body in which a fetus cannot survive. The tube ruptured, surgery was required to save Rentzer's life, and as a consequence she was unable to work for six weeks. Rentzer appeals a judgment of the superior court refusing to order the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board to award her unemployment compensation disability benefits for the first 28 days of her six-week disability.

At issue is the interpretation of Unemployment Insurance Code section 2626, which provides in pertinent part:

'In no case shall the term 'disability' or 'disabled' include any injury or illness caused by or arising in connection with pregnancy up to the termination of such pregnancy and for a period of 28 days thereafter.'

The Board argues that Rentzer was ineligible for disability benefits for the first 28 days of her disability because her disability arose in connection with pregnancy. Rentzer argues that an 'ectopic pregnancy' is really no pregnancy at all, that the Legislature did not intend the 28-day exclusion to apply to her condition.

The question is whether Rentzer's condition amounted to an illness 'caused by or arising in connection with pregnancy,' which therefore fell within the 28-day period of disability exclusion required under section 2626. While no California cases are directly in point, the scope of section 2626 was considered in Clark v. California Emp. Stab. Com., 166 Cal.App.2d 326, 332 P.2d 716 (1958), where a woman disabled from employment because of pregnancy challenged section 2626 as a denial of equal protection of the laws. In upholding the reasonableness and validity of the statutory exclusion the court said that exclusion of pregnancy-connected conditions amounted, in effect, to an...