No. 03324300 (2003). EMPLOYEE: Guillermo Medellin.
Case Date | December 23, 2003 |
Court | Massachusetts |
Massachusetts Workers Compensation
2003.
No. 03324300 (2003).
EMPLOYEE: Guillermo Medellin
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: Guillermo
Medellin EMPLOYER: Cashman KPA INSURER: National
Union Fire Insurance Co.BOARD NO. 03324300REVIEWING
BOARD DECISION (Judges
Maze-Rothstein, Carroll and Costigan)APPEARANCES
Richard J. Bennett, Esq., for the employee
Michael P. McCoy, Esq., for the insurer
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, and Constance M. McGrane,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, amicus curiae for the employee
Amy Sugimori, Esq., National Employment Law Project, et al.,
amici curiae for the employee
Audrey R. Richardson, Esq., Greater Boston Legal Services, amicus
curiae for the employee
Richard M. Glassman, Esq., Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, amicus
curiae for the employee
Karl Klare, Esq., amicus curiae for the employee
L. Paterson Rae, Esq., Western Massachusetts Legal Services,
amicus curiae for the employee
Joyce E. Davis, Esq., Brazilian Immigrant Ctr., amicus curiae for
the employee
Iris Gomez, Esq., Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, amicus
curiae for the employee
Shelley B. Kroll, Esq., Donald J. Siegel, Esq., and Michael J.
Doheny, Esq., Massachusetts AFL-CIO, amicus curiae for the employee
Jonathan P. Hiatt, Esq., and Craig Becker, Esq., AFL-CIO, amicus
curiae for the employee
Michael A. Feinberg, Esq., Arthur G. Zack, Esq. and Jonathan M.
Conti, Esq., New England Painting and Glazing Industries DC 35 Joint Trade
Board, amicus curiae for the employee
Thomas M. Wielgus, Esq., Workers' Compensation Trust Fund, amicus
curiae for the insurer
Henry E. Bratcher III, Esq., Zurich North America, amicus curiae
for the insurer
MAZE-ROTHSTEIN, J. After recent United
States Supreme Court pronouncements, can undocumented immigrant workers [1]
receive Massachusetts workers' compensation benefits? The insurer argues they
cannot. It appeals from a decision awarding Guillermo Medellin such benefits.
Specifically, the insurer submits that Mr. Medellin cannot receive benefits for
his incapacitating work injury because his admitted status as an undocumented
immigrant worker bars him from receiving benefits under the recent United
States Supreme Court decision of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). It is the insurer's contention that
Hoffman overrules the reviewing board decision, Brambila v. Chase-Walton
Elastomers, Inc., 11 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 410 (1997), by preempting our
law on this point. In Brambila, we concluded that an employee's status as an
undocumented worker, unauthorized to be employed in the United States under 8
U.S.C. § 1324a, [2] does not bar him/her from receiving workers'
compensation benefits otherwise due. Brambila, supra at 416. For the reasons
that follow, we consider Hoffman inapposite, and we decline to overrule
Brambila. We therefore affirm the decision.
Guillermo Medellin is a fifty-one year old native of Mexico where
he trained and worked as an engineer. (Dec. 3.) After arrival to the United
States, now nine years ago, he attended two months of school until economic
demands required that he instead, pursue full time work as a cleaner and
construction laborer. (Dec. 3-4). On August 12, 2000, at work, Mr. Medellin was
excavating poles with a jackhammer when the ground crumbled beneath his feet
and he dropped, still grasping the jackhammer, into an eight foot deep hole. He
felt an immediate onset of pain in his right arm and shoulder, right major hand
and right knee. (Dec. 4.) Despite surgeries, the placement and removal of pins
and extensive physical therapy, Mr. Medellin's right major upper extremity
remains impaired from his shoulder to his hand. (Dec. 4-5.) The employee
claimed workers' compensation benefits, which the insurer resisted. During the
§ 11 hearing on the claim, the employee admitted that, though he had come
with a ten year visitor's visa, he was working in the United States illegally
under a false social security number. (Tr. 35-36.) The judge awarded the
employee continuing G. L. c. 152, § 34, temporary and total incapacity
benefits. (Dec. 6.)
Following our decision in Brambila, would cause us to disregard
the insurer's assertion that the employee's status as an undocumented worker
bars his receipt of workers' compensation benefits. The relevant facts of
Brambila are like those of the present case: An employee, unauthorized to work
in the United States, presented false documents proving eligibility to be
employed and was hired. Mr. Brambila's employer had duly requested the proof of
eligibility, thereby fulfilling its obligations under 8 U. S. C. § 1324a,
and hired the employee without knowledge of his actual immigration status. The
employer did not learn that the employee's immigration status was illegal until
well after the industrial accident had occurred. Brambila, supra at 411-412. We
reasoned that an employee's misrepresentation as to his eligibility to be
employed in the United States did not nullify, ab initio, the contract of
employment under G. L. c. 152, § 1(4), which defines "employee" as "every
person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or
implied, oral or written . . . ."
"A contract induced by fraudulent misrepresentations is voidable,
not void. [Citation omitted.] The rule applies in the employment context as
well." Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Delgiacco, 410 Mass. 840, 842 (1991).
"[U]nless rescinded, 'a voidable contract imposes on the parties the same
obligations as if it were not voidable.' " Berenson v. French, 262 Mass. 247,
260-261 (1928), quoting Williston, Contracts, § 15. " 'Voidable' imports
an act which may be avoided, rather than an invalid act which may be confirmed.
. . ." Rothberg v. Schmiedeskamp, 334 Mass. 172, 176 (1956). As of the
occurrence of the industrial accident, the employer had not rescinded the
contract of hire. The rights incident to Mr. Brambila's status under the
contract of hire were intact. Hence, that unrescinded contract was still
enforceable at the time of the injury. One of the rights incident to the
employment status was coverage under the Act. See Pierce's Case, 267 Mass. 208,
211-212 (1929)(illegal employment contract of minor at fireworks factory not
void ab initio and still enforceable as of death of minor occurring at work;
death therefore compensable).
Brambila, supra at 413-414. [3] Moreover, we were persuaded that
a proximate causal connection between the employee's misrepresentation of his
immigration status at the time of being hired, and the work injury that he
later suffered was absent.
There is no evidence before us that Mr. Brambila's
misrepresentation caused his injury. (July 11, 1996, Findings and Order.) The
injury "might have happened in the same way whatever the [employee's status]
had been. His bodily presence was an essential condition of his injury; but it
does not follow that it must have been a cause thereof." Moran v. Dickenson,
204 Mass. 559, 562 (1910).
Brambila, supra at 415.
Basis for the Hoffman Challenge
The insurer in the present case argues that Brambila has been
effectively overturned by the Supreme Court's Hoffman decision. Before
addressing the merits of that contention, we must briefly respond to the
procedural background that gives rise to the argument. The employee rightly
points out that, at the § 11 hearing, the insurer did not challenge the
employee's claim on the basis of his unauthorized status. However, we do not
see this as a waiver under the circumstances of this case. While the insurer
certainly could have challenged our Brambila decision without the ammunition
that Hoffman arguably supplies, it avers in its appeal that Hoffman has vastly
changed the legal landscape for undocumented immigrant employees. Waiver does
not necessarily apply where supervening decisions emanating during the direct
appeal result in a change in the law, and therefore present new arguments
unavailable at the time of hearing. See Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 77,
87-88 (1966)(failure to adduce evidence in trial of point of law redefined in
Supreme Court decision rendered while direct appeal pending warranted remand);
Pilgrim v. MacGibbon, 313 Mass. 290, 296-298 (1943)(Supreme Judicial Court
applied decisional law rendered after trial of matter on review, to reverse a
judgement notwithstanding the verdict in accordance with the reformulation of
the law that intervened). See generally Attorney General v. Book Named "Naked
Lunch," 351 Mass. 298, 306-308 (1966)(Reardon, J., dissenting)(discussion of
waiver limitations where there is intervening change in the law while case on
appeal). The insurer's failure to challenge Brambila at the hearing, based on
the evidence of the employee's illegal immigrant status adduced at hearing,
does not operate as a bar in the instant case.
Moreover, the reach of Hoffman is arguable given aspects of its
reasoning. In Hoffman, the Supreme Court concluded that the National Labor
Relations Board's award of backpay to undocumented immigrant workers for
violations of the federal labor law it administers "would unduly trench upon
explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy, as
expressed in IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]." Hoffman, 535
U.S. at 151. The statutory prohibitions adverted to are those governing the
employment relationship between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial