Campos v. Daisy Construction Co.
107 A.3d 570
| Del. | 2014Background
- Campos, injured while employed by Daisy Construction, began total disability benefits at Daisy’s request.
- Daisy, at the carrier’s request, investigated Campos’s social security number and discovered it was invalid, leading to Campos’s discharge.
- A doctor re-evaluated Campos and found he could perform light-duty work within restrictions.
- Daisy petitioned the Board to terminate total disability benefits and argued Campos had no loss in earning power due to available light-duty work at pre-injury wages if employment authorization existed.
- The Board terminated total disability benefits and denied partial disability benefits, finding no diminished earning power since light-duty work was allegedly available at the same wage.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding Campos ineligible for partial disability because immigration status prevented a valid wage-earning capacity comparison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daisy met the burden to prove no loss in earning power | Campos argues there was no actual job availability for him at his pre-injury wage. | Daisy contends light-duty positions at the same wage show earning power unimpeded by injury. | No; actual job availability required, not theoretical availability. |
| Whether undocumented status bars partial disability under § 2325 | Campos relies on Ramirez that immigration status does not defeat benefits. | Daisy argues status demonstrates lack of availability and thus no partial disability. | Undocumented status cannot defeat entitlement; job availability must be shown. |
| Whether rehire offers tied to undocumented status are legitimate job availability | Campos contends Daisy’s offer is illusory due to lack of work authorization. | Daisy maintains the offer demonstrates availability at pre-injury wage if status were resolved. | Offers must be bona fide and actually available; theoretical offers are insufficient. |
| IRCA considerations in burden-shifting for job availability | Ramirez-style approach should apply, giving equal treatment to undocumented workers. | Employer compliance with IRCA could shift burden or absolve the employer. | Burden to prove actual availability aligns with IRCA’s purpose to deter illegal hiring; not satisfied here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Del. Valley Field Servs. v. Ramirez, 61 A.3d 617 (Del. 2013) (undocumented status does not automatically remove workers’ compensation coverage)
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fields, 758 A.2d 506 (Del. 2000) (employer cannot rely on abstract willingness to hire to prove availability)
- Ham v. Chrysler Corp., 231 A.2d 258 (Del. Super. 1967) (origin of earning power and deduction in partial disability cases)
- Gonzalez v. Performance Painting, Inc., 258 P.3d 1098 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (undocumented status cannot automatically bar benefits; burden to prove available jobs)
- Del. Valley Field Servs. v. Ramirez, 2012 WL 8261599 (Del. Super. Sept. 13, 2012) ( Ramirez affirmed; undocumented status not fatal to total disability)