Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed a workers’ compensation decision awarding benefits to an unauthorized minor alien injured while working on a construction site. The court held that Kentucky’s workers’ compensation law covers employees without regard to the legality of their immigration status and is not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act. The court also upheld findings concerning the employment relationship, average weekly wage, and temporary total disability, while affirming a remand for further consideration of an alleged workplace safety violation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Rivera qualified as an employee under Kentucky's workers' compensation statutes despite his minor status and unauthorized immigration status.
- Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act preempted Kentucky workers' compensation benefits for an unauthorized alien.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the average weekly wage determination without documentary payroll evidence.
- Whether the earliest date on which a physician assigned a permanent impairment rating could serve as the endpoint for temporary total disability benefits absent an express maximum-medical-improvement date.
- Whether the claim was properly remanded for findings under KRS 342.165(1) concerning an alleged workplace safety violation, and whether expert testimony was required.
Holdings
- The ALJ properly found that Rivera was Verdon's employee because the evidence supported an employment relationship under the applicable workers' compensation factors.
- The Immigration Reform and Control Act does not preempt Kentucky's workers' compensation statute insofar as it provides benefits to an unauthorized alien injured in a work-related accident.
- The ALJ properly determined Rivera's average weekly wage to be $150 without documentary payroll evidence.
- The ALJ properly terminated temporary total disability benefits on December 20, 2006, the earliest date on which a physician assigned Rivera a permanent impairment rating.
- The claim was properly remanded for the ALJ to determine which safety regulation governed, whether it required fall protection, and whether the lack of protection contributed in any degree to the accident; expert testimony was not required to prove the violation or causation.
Key quotations
“A party who appeals a finding that favors the party with the burden of proof must show that no substantial evidence supported the finding, i.e., that the finding was unreasonable under the evidence.” (754)
“A federal law preempts a state law implicitly when it is impossible to comply with both of them or when the state law creates an obstacle to accomplishing federal objectives.” (755)
“KRS 342.165(1) does not require expert testimony to prove that the employer's violation of a known safety regulation helped to cause the accident in which its employee was injured.” (759)
Factual background
Rivera, a fifteen-year-old unauthorized alien, worked part time at a residential construction site operated by Abel Verdon Construction. On July 8, 2005, he fell through an unprotected second-floor opening, suffered a severe head injury and other permanent impairments, and received medical treatment paid by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services after Verdon denied liability. Evidence showed that Rivera performed necessary site-maintenance work, was paid in cash, and worked under the direction of Verdon's framing foreman.
Procedural history
The Administrative Law Judge found that Rivera was Verdon's employee, awarded temporary total disability benefits, calculated an average weekly wage of $150, and awarded triple permanent partial disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board remanded for admission of safety-expert testimony and further consideration of whether a safety violation caused the accident. The Court of Appeals reinstated the ALJ's refusal to admit the expert testimony but affirmed the remaining rulings and rejected the employer's IRCA preemption argument. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed.
Remand instructions
The ALJ must determine what safety regulation governed the facts, whether that regulation required fall protection at the time of Rivera's accident, and whether the absence of such protection contributed in any degree to the accident.