Vega-Rivera v. Hyatt
In Maribel Vega-Rivera v. Hyatt, Injury No. 08-103142 (Mo. Labor & Indus. Rel. Comm. 2011), the Missouri Labor Commission affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's Award of workers' compensation benefits with a separate opinion confirming as a matter of law that an injured employee's immigration status does not bar the employee from receiving workers' compensation benefits. Springfield, Missouri workers' compensation lawyers have analyzed the case and prepared the summary below.
Facts of the Case
Maribel Vega-Rivera had been employed as a housekeeper for Hyatt hotels since approximately 1996, working a minimum of 40 hours per week. He job duties included the general day to day cleaning of 30-40 hotel rooms. Vega-Rvera developed severe problems with her hands including persistent pain and numbness. She filed a Missouri claim for compensation alleging she contracted bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in the course and scope of her job duties as a housekeeper for Hyatt.
Hyatt denied her workers' compensation case on several grounds, disputing whether her injuries were medically caused by her work at Hyatt and alleging that Vega-Rivera's alleged illegal immigrant status barred her from receiving workers' compensation benefits. The case went to trial before an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Judge found for Vega-Rivera on compensability, including the immigration issue. The employer appealed the decision to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, whose 3 member body comprises the first level of appeal from a workers' compensation decision.
The Labor and Industrial Relation Commission's Decision
The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, and authored a supplemental opinion, specifically addressing the issue of whether an employee's immigration status affects the right to obtain workers' compensation benefits. The Commission treated the issue as an affirmative defense raised by the employer/insurer, and thus placed the burden of proof on the employer/insurer. The employer/insurer argued that Vega-Rivera could not be considered an "employee" under RSMo § 287.020, which provides in relevant part, "The word "employee" as used [in the workers' compensation law] shall be construed to mean every person in the service of any employer ... under any contract of hire...."
The Commission first found that Hyatt failed to cite any authority establishing that Vega-Rivera was indeed an illegal alien. Vega-Rivera did admit at trial that she crossed the border illegally, and that she was not a naturalized citizen. However, she did not admit that she was indeed an illegal alien, but rather testified she was trying to work her immigration status out. The Commission determined that Hyatt offered no citation to the law to support its contention that Vega-Rivera's testimony on its face could determine Vega-Rivera's legal status for immigration purposes. The Commission declined to comb federal law for support for the employer's assertion in that regard.
Regardless of Vega-Rivera's actual immigration status, the Commission determined that as a matter of law, illegal alien status would not preclude her from obtaining workers' compensation benefits. The Commission noted that under the required strict construction of the statute, "The clear, plain, obvious, and natural import of that language provides no support whatsoever for the employer's argument that the legislature intended to exclude illegal aliens from the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law." The Commission continued, "Rather, the language makes clear that 'every person' in the service of 'any employer' under 'any contract of hire' is an 'employee.'"
Impact on Workers' Compensation
The effect of Vega-Rivera is that it makes it clear that the Commission will not penalize an injured worker based on immigration status. While not technically binding precedent like a decision by the Court of Appeals, the case is certainly instructive as to how the Commission and the Administrative Law Judges will be treating this controversial issue in future cases.
