Vol. VI No. 5
MAY 2000
COMPENSATION
NEWS
MONTHLY REPORT
ILLEGAL WORKER NOT
ENTITLED TO REHABILITATION
The Court uses the phrase illegal
worker to describe a person working
in California that does not lawfully
reside here. It is a federal crime to
enter the US without the permission
of the United States Government.
compensation judge awarded the
applicant temporary total disability up
until the permanent and stationary
date. The judge also awarded the
applicant $16,000 worth of vocational
rehabilitation benefits. Normally,
vocational rehabilitation would not be
tried with the main issues. This
opinion does not give an analysis of
the sequence of events in this case. We
do not know what happened at the
rehabilitation bureau prior to the trial.
The case was appealed. The opinion
does not explain what happened on
petition for reconsideration. The
employer contended that the worker
should not be entitled to temporary or
permanent disability because the
worker was not legally working in the
United States. The appellate court
indicated that a worker's immigration
status does not affect the entitlement to
temporary disability payments. The
court cited Labor Code section 3351
which states that "every person in the
service of an employer...whether
lawfully or unlawfully employed, and
includes: Aliens and minors".
The court then dealt with vocational
rehabilitation. In this case if the
employer offers modified or alternative
work and the employee either accepts
or rejects the offer, the employee is not
entitled to vocational rehabilitation
services. Here the employer offered
the modified work and then
discovered the applicant was not
legally permitted to work in the
United States. Continued employment
of the applicant would have subjected
the employer to civil penalties,
criminal fines and imprisonment.
The employer argued that providing
the applicant vocational rehabilitation
would deny the employer equal
protection of the laws. This court
agreed. The court indicated that an
illegal worker would not have equal
protection but would end up having
more protection than a legal worker. In
this case a legal worker would not be
provided job training because the
employer had offered the employee
modified work. Therefore, if an illegal
worker were to be entitled to
vocational rehabilitation training the
illegal worker would be entitled to
more extensive services than a legal
worker.
DEL TACO V.
WCAB
(GUTTIEREZ)
The applicant was employed at a
restaurant when he injured his back.
The day after the injury the physician
released the applicant to modified
duty. The applicant returned to
modified duty. The employer
discovered that the applicant was not
legally in the United States. The
applicant had provided the employer
with an invalid social security
number.
The
applicant
applied
for
workers' compensation benefits.
Apparently there was a hearing.
The workers
CONTENTS
DEL TACO V. WCAB
(GUTTIEREZ) ...................... 1
Editor: HARVEY BROWN
Address. 350 West 5th Street #105
San Pedro CA 90731
Phone. 310 831-0872
Click here for printable version