Fernandez v. McDonald's
292 P.3d 311
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Fernandez was injured at a McDonald’s in Topeka on August 4, 2007, and was initially limited to light duty.
- Her Social Security number was found invalid by the Division of Workers Compensation; she failed to provide documentation to establish work authorization.
- Fernandez was later confirmed to be an unauthorized alien with no legal authority to work in the United States.
- The ALJ found 7% functional impairment and denied a separate permanent partial general disability (work disability) on public policy grounds.
- The Board majority reversed, awarding Fernandez a 59% work disability under K.S.A. 44-510e, based on the wage-loss and task-loss formula.
- McDonald’s challenged the Board’s use of wage-loss averaging with task-loss, arguing an unauthorized alien cannot be work-disability eligible; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can an unauthorized alien receive work disability under 44-510e? | McDonald’s: unauthorized status precludes any work disability award. | Fernandez: plain language allows award; no explicit exception excluding unauthorized aliens. | Yes; immigration status does not preclude award. |
| Whether wage-loss averaging with task-loss is proper under 44-510e(a) when postinjury wages are less than 90% of preinjury wages. | McDonald’s: postinjury wage loss cannot be used for unauthorized aliens; rely on strict interpretation. | Fernandez: statutory framework permits averaging when wage loss exists and functional impairment is not controlling. | Wage-loss averaging is proper; Board’s computation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergstrom v. Spears Mfg. Co., 289 Kan. 605 (2009) (plain-language approach; no extra exemptions beyond text)
- O’Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 294 Kan. 318 (2012) (legislature’s plain language governs; avoid reading in policy exceptions)
- Coma Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 283 Kan. 625 (2007) (plain-language interpretation; no undocumented-worker exclusion in KWPA analogy)
- Redd v. Kansas Truck Ctr., 291 Kan. 176 (2010) (in pari materia approach to statutory interpretation)
- Law v. Law Co. Bldg. Assoc., 295 Kan. 551 (2012) (court will not read into statute language not readily found)
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm’rs, 289 Kan. 926 (2009) (statutory interpretation restraints)