By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
An alien who was not authorized to be or work in the United States and who obtained employment through the use of false documentation may still be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits related to a work-related injury, held the Supreme Court of Wyoming. The Court acknowledged that an injured worker had the burden of showing that at the time of injury he or she was an “employee” as that term is defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii). The court further acknowledged that ordinarily that definition required the worker to establish that he or she had the right to work in the United States. The Court also noted, however, that the statute had been amended in 2005 to include as employees those workers whom the employer reasonably believed were authorized to work in the U.S. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the Court indicated the amendment was likely intended to protect employers from being sued in tort by illegal aliens who obtained employment using false documents. The Court added that, with the amendment, the legislature evidently intended to expose employers who knew they had hired illegal aliens to tort liability, perhaps as a deterrent. Here it was undisputed that the employer believed the worker was authorized to work in the U.S. when it hired him. Based on the unchallenged facts, the Court could only conclude that the worker was an “employee” at the time of his injury and, therefore, entitled to compensation.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See In re Claim of Arellano, 2015 WY 21, 2015 Wyo. LEXIS 23 (Feb. 18, 2015) [2015 WY 21, 2015 Wyo. LEXIS 23 (Feb. 18, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 66.03 [66.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site