|
by Mary A. Schopper,
DUE DOYLE FANNING EWING & METZGER
Indiana, like the rest of the country, has experienced enormous growth
in the number of immigrants in its workforce. Many Indiana employers
are concerned that, in spite of their best efforts to validate federally
required documentation, some employees are working illegally. But are
those “employees” entitled to worker’s compensation benefits if their
illegal status is discovered after an on-the-job injury?
The Worker’s Compensation Act of Indiana mandates that employers provide
medical treatment and wage replacement in the form of temporary total
disability benefits to “employees” who sustain “accidental injuries,
arising out of and in the course of the employment.”
Entitlement to benefits is not only predicated upon a causal connection
between the injury sustained and the work performed, but also upon the
actual existence of an employment relationship. The issue of whether or
not an illegal alien is or has ever been an “employee” for purposes of
the Worker’s Compensation Act has never been addressed by the Indiana
Courts. However, given that the illegal alien was likely performing a
service that benefited the employer and both parties presumably had a
reasonable belief that an employment relationship existed, the Worker’s
Compensation Board and the Indiana Courts could find that the illegal
alien was in fact an employee.
If we assume that the employment relationship exists, is the employee
entitled to all benefits under the Act? The Legislature has recognized
a few exceptions to the rule that temporary total disability is owed
until the employee has reached maximum medical improvement. One
exception does allow the employer to terminate temporary total
disability benefits if the employee is “unable or unavailable to work
for reasons unrelated to the compensable injury.”
[i]
Unfortunately, case law provides very little guidance in evaluating
exactly what the Legislature meant with this provision, and there is
certainly no case law on point regarding whether employers owe temporary
total disability to illegal aliens. However, an illegal alien is
certainly “unable” to work under federal law.
Employers are governed by The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(hereinafter IRCA) during the initial hiring process.
[ii]
Under the IRCA, Congress established an “employment verification system”
whereby employment is to be denied aliens who are not lawfully present
or employable in the United States. The prospective employee must
present documentation such as a social security card, birth certificate,
driver’s license, green card, etc, and the employer must certify on a
United States Department of Justice Employment Eligibility Verification
Form I-9 that it has reviewed the required documents.
Under the IRCA, if an employer hires an unauthorized alien, or the alien
subsequently becomes unauthorized, the employer must terminate the
employment. Employers who violate IRCA are subject to civil and
criminal penalties. Similarly, an unauthorized alien who presents
fraudulent documentation, including “any document lawfully issued to or
with respect to a person other than the possessor”, is subject to civil
fines and criminal prosecution.
In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
(hereinafter Hoffman Plastics)[iii],
a 2002 United States Supreme Court decision, the Court determined that,
in spite of the fact that Hoffman Plastics violated the National Labor
Relations Act, it was not responsible for payment of back wages to an
illegal alien who presented false employment verification documents.
Specifically, the illegal alien had presented a false birth certificate
when hired by Hoffman Plastics.
The Court reasoned that the IRCA makes it “impossible for an
undocumented alien to obtain employment . . . without some party
directly contravening explicit congressional policies.” The Court held
that awarding back pay to an illegal alien “would unduly trench upon
explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy
[and] would encourage the successful evasion of apprehension by
immigration authorities, condone prior violations of the immigration
laws, and encourage future violations.”
Although not directly on point, the Supreme Court’s decision in
Hoffman Plastics can certainly be analogized to the Indiana worker’s
compensation setting. This exact issue has, however, been addressed in
unreported decisions before The Industrial Commission of Ohio.
In the case of Marcos Hernandez[iv],
the Commission vacated an award of temporary total disability in an
otherwise compensable claim, finding that “claimant acknowledged that he
was an illegal alien during his entire tenure with the . . . employer.
Inasmuch as federal law precludes the employment of illegal aliens,
claimant had no right to any income. . .” Both employee and employer
would violate the IRCA if temporary total disability benefits were paid,
opening the door to civil and criminal penalties. Similarly, an
illegal alien’s inability to work in the United States likely renders
them “unable or unavailable to work for reasons unrelated to the
compensable injury” under the Indiana Act.
A fraudulent misrepresentation argument might also be made. Again, no
Indiana cases are on point, but Virginia has addressed this issue. In
Granados v. Windson Development. Corp., et al.
[v],
the Virginia court affirmed a denial of benefits, because credible
evidence established that plaintiff misrepresented his ability to
legally work at the time of hire, the employer reasonably relied on the
misrepresentation and that, but for his hiring, plaintiff would not have
been injured in the course of his employment. Plaintiff sustained an on
the job injury, and the employer subsequently discovered that plaintiff
had misrepresented his documentation. Plaintiff’s inability to work in
the United States was not corrected. The court further reasoned that the
employer complied with its obligations, and the claimant should not
benefit from his fraudulent procurement of employment.
Given that the Indiana Act’s provision allowing termination of temporary
disability benefits is somewhat unique, there are few, if any, decisions
from other jurisdictions addressing this issue. Most other decisions
turn on the issue of whether an employment relationship actually existed
in the first place.
The issue of whether an employer can properly terminate temporary total
disability payments to an illegal alien was recently decided by the Full
Worker’s Compensation Board on appeal from a Single Hearing Member’s
Award. In that case, an employee presented an invalid social security
card to the employer when he was hired. That faulty documentation was
discovered after the employee sustained an otherwise compensable
work-related injury. The Full Board found that the employee’s “lack of
a valid social security number caused him to be unable to work for
reasons unrelated to his injury” and further, that the employer properly
terminated temporary total disability benefits pursuant to the Worker’s
Compensation Act. That decision is on appeal to the Indiana Court of
Appeals, so a final answer to this question will not be had for some
time.
The Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on whether medical benefits can
be terminated along with temporary total disability if an employee is
“unable or unavailable to work for reasons unrelated to the compensable
injury”. Likewise, the United States Supreme Court did not address
medical benefits in Hoffman Plastics. But, given the “humane
purposes” of the Act, the Worker’s Compensation Board and the Indiana
courts could find that illegal aliens are at least entitled to medical
treatment for on-the-job injuries until the point of maximum medical
improvement. Payment of medical benefits to illegal aliens was not at
issue in the case recently decided by the Full Worker’s Compensation
Board and is not on appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals..
Due to Indiana’s unique statutory provision, illegal aliens are likely
not entitled to temporary total disability benefits, because Federal law
renders them “unable” to work here in Indiana. A contrary decision
would put employers in the no win position of choosing between complying
with Federal law or paying wage replacement temporary total disability
benefits.
While
awaiting a final determination on this issue, what can an employer do to
ensure that it is complying with both Federal and State law? There are
“social security validation” services which can double check that the
employee’s number is valid. In Worker’s Compensation claims involving
employees who have some language barriers, it’s also advisable to assign
a nurse case manager and translator to manage the medical aspects of the
claim and to maintain communication with medical providers. Although,
the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board does not have translators on
staff, it can provide some resources for both the employer and employee
regarding its rules and requirements. Additionally, a new Mexican
Consulate office has recently opened in Indianapolis to assist
immigrants.
[iii]
122 S. Ct. 1275 (2002)
[iv]
The Industrial Commission of Ohio, Claim Number 96-606492
[v]
480 S.E. 2d 150 (Va. Ct. App. 1997)
Back
to Top
|