The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court has rejected an undocumented immigrant's challenge to the constitutionality of a provision of Tennessee's workers' compensation law prohibiting payment of certain benefits to employees not eligible or authorized to work in the United States under federal immigration rules.
The Case
Salvador Sandoval, an undocumented immigrant, suffered an injury while working for his employer, Tennessee Steel Structures. The parties settled his workers' compensation claim.
Mr. Sandoval could not return to work after his injury because he was not eligible or authorized to work in the United States under federal immigration rules. He therefore sought additional permanent disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-207(3)(B).
Tennessee Steel Structures disputed Mr. Sandoval's claim, relying on Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-207(3)(F), which does not permit the additional permanent disability benefits set forth in subdivision (3)(B) to be paid to any employee ineligible or unauthorized to work in the United States under federal immigration rules.
In response, Mr. Sandoval argued that Section 50-6-207(3)(F) was facially unconstitutional.
The issue reached the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The Tennessee Supreme Court Panel's Decision
The panel rejected Mr. Sandoval's challenge to the constitutionality of Section 50-6-207(3)(F).
In its decision, the panel explained that Section 50-6-207(3)(F) addresses the situation that arises when an employer cannot under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) return an injured employee to work.
The court observed that if an employer unwittingly hired an undocumented employee, and the employee subsequently became injured, the employer could not return the undocumented employee to work without violating federal law.
In that circumstance, the court continued, an employer could no longer be incentivized to return the employee to work under the onus of an additional award.
The court reasoned that all injured employees receive the same initial award, regardless of immigration status; however, only injured employees in the country legally receive the additional benefits under Section 50-6-207(3)(B).
Conversely, the court ruled, if it were to hold Section 50-6-207(3)(F) unconstitutional, an undocumented employee who was injured, treated, received permanent partial disability, and was able to return to work but could not because of IRCA would be eligible to receive additional benefits, which a “legal employee” would not be entitled to receive under the same circumstances.
Accordingly, the court concluded that Section 50-6-207(3)(F) was constitutional and, therefore, it denied Mr. Sandoval's request for increased benefits.
The case is Sandoval v. Williamson, No. M2018-01148-SC-R3-WC (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Panel March 28, 2019). Attorneys involved include: James Higgens and Donald Byrd, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Salvador Sandoval. Michael L. Haynie, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Mark Williamson. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andree S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Alexander S. Rieger, Assistant Attorney General for the Appellee, Attorney General of Tennessee.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].