AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• An undocumented worker from Mexico, employed by Salls Brothers Construction, Inc., suffered injuries from a fall at work in December 2007. Despite his undocumented status and the use of false documentation during his hiring process, he was awarded temporary total disability and permanent partial disability benefits. However, his claim for modifier benefits was denied due to his undocumented status and the submission of false documents (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration: The worker was awarded temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits but was denied modifier benefits due to his undocumented status and use of false documentation (para 3).
• Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico: On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of modifier benefits, instructing the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) to review the case in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling in Gonzalez v. Performance Painting, Inc. (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the WCJ erred in interpreting Gonzalez as it applied to him and contended that the employer is liable for paying modifier benefits due to "fatal substantive flaws" in his I-9 forms, despite admitting to providing false documentation (para 6).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Argued compliance in good faith with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and reasonable reliance on the false documentation provided by the worker during the hiring process (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the worker is entitled to modifier benefits despite his undocumented status and the submission of false documentation during the hiring process (paras 3-4, 6).
• Whether the employer knew or should have known about the worker's undocumented status at the time of his hire (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to deny modifier benefits to the worker (para 1).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, Michael E. Vigil, and J. Miles Hanisee, JJ.:
  The court reasoned that the Workers’ Compensation Act and IRCA aim to balance the rights and interests of workers and employers without favoring one over the other. The Act applies to undocumented workers, focusing on whether employers knew or should have known of a worker's undocumented status for eligibility for modifier benefits. The court found that the employer had followed appropriate hiring procedures and reasonably relied on the worker's false documentation, making the worker more culpable for the deception. The court rejected the worker's argument to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Ketchikan Drywall Services, Inc. v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, emphasizing the difference between state administrative workers’ compensation proceedings and federal administrative immigration proceedings. The court concluded that strict compliance with IRCA was not required under the circumstances, affirming the denial of modifier benefits to the worker (paras 7-27).