54 N.E.3d 1013
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Noe Escamilla, born in Mexico, lived and worked as a masonry laborer in the U.S. while undocumented; he paid taxes using a Social Security number not tied to him.
- In December 2010 Escamilla was injured at a construction site; doctors permanently restricted his lifting, preventing masonry work.
- Escamilla sued general contractor Shiel Sexton for medical expenses, lost wages, and future lost income; he sought to present expert testimony projecting U.S. future earnings.
- Escamilla moved in limine to exclude mention of his immigration status; Shiel Sexton moved to exclude experts who projected U.S. wages, arguing Escamilla could only claim wages he could lawfully earn (Mexico).
- Trial court denied Escamilla’s motion to exclude immigration-status evidence and granted Shiel Sexton’s motion excluding Escamilla’s experts; the court certified the order for interlocutory appeal.
- The appellate court affirmed exclusion of the experts (on grounds the expert reports failed to account for immigration-related contingencies) and affirmed admission of immigration-status evidence (relevant if U.S. wages are claimed and there is risk of deportation), then remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of Escamilla’s immigration status should be excluded pre-trial | Escamilla: immigration status should be excluded as prejudicial and irrelevant to damages | Shiel Sexton: status is relevant to lost-future-wage calculation because plaintiff could not legally work in U.S. at time of injury | Court: Status is admissible where plaintiff claims U.S. wages and there is risk of deportation; otherwise relevance must be reassessed at trial if circumstances change |
| Whether plaintiff’s expert testimony projecting U.S. future wages is admissible | Escamilla: experts’ projections of U.S. earnings are probative of lost earning capacity | Shiel Sexton: such testimony is speculative/unreliable because plaintiff had no legal right to work in U.S.; expert opinions should be limited to lawful-country earnings | Court: affirmed exclusion of experts — not because U.S. wages are per se inadmissible, but because the experts’ reports failed to account for immigration-related contingencies and thus were not adequately tied to case facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2002) (NLRB back-pay for unlawfully employed worker reversed; court emphasized immigration-law and public-policy concerns)
- Wielgus v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 854 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (discusses limiting lost-future-wage recovery for undocumented plaintiffs to earnings in country of lawful residence)
- Ayala v. Lee, 81 A.3d 584 (Md. Ct. App. 2013) (immigration status is a factual matter relevant to lost-wage awards; jury should weigh likelihood of remaining in U.S.)
- Crenshaw v. McMinds, 456 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (evidence irrelevant to lost earning capacity may be highly prejudicial and excluded)
- Scott v. Nabours, 296 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973) (lost earning-capacity damages require proof linking injury to inability to engage in vocation and may be proven by expert or lay testimony)