Kennett Square Specialties v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
31 A.3d 325
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant sustained a July 19, 2008 lower-back work injury as a truck driver for Kennett Square Specialties.
- Employer provisionally accepted liability Aug. 8, 2008 and paid temporary compensation for a lumbar strain.
- On Sept. 8, 2008 Employer issued a denial, and Claimant filed a claim petition Sept. 9, 2008.
- At hearing, Claimant refused to answer questions about immigration status, invoking Fifth Amendment; Employer questioned citizenship and undocumented status.
- WCJ suspended Claimant's benefits as of July 19, 2008 based on an adverse inference that Claimant is an undocumented worker; Board later reversed suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adverse inference alone can prove undocumented status | Employer argues adverse inference suffices | Cruz argues inference alone is insufficient | Adverse inference alone is insufficient to prove undocumented status |
| Whether undocumented status supports suspension of wage-loss benefits | Employer contends status justifies suspension | Claimant argues no basis without substantial evidence | Undocumented status may support suspension of wage-loss benefits, but only with substantial evidence of status; inference alone cannot sustain finding |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the WCJ's undocumented-status finding | Employer relies on immigration-status evidence | Claimant's testimony not provided; inference relied | There is insufficient substantial evidence to support a finding of undocumented status based solely on the adverse inference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reinforced Earth Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Astudillo), 570 Pa. 464 (2002) (undocumented status affects suspension of wage loss benefits; status not required for medical benefits)
- Mora v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (DDP Contracting Co.), 845 A.2d 950 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (undocumented status can justify suspension of wage loss benefits, no job-availability showing required)
- Harmon v. Mifflin County School District, 552 Pa. 92 (1998) (failure to testify can corroborate opposing evidence but cannot prove essential fact alone)
- Harring v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 70 Pa.Cmwlth. 173 (1982) (adverse inference is not evidence itself; it affects credibility)