 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DYNASTY SAMPLE COMPANY v. BELTRAN12/5/1996
Rosendo Beltran was employed by Dynasty Sample Company. On January 12, 1994, while working for Dynasty, Beltran severed two of his fingers on a piece of machinery. Subsequently, he sought workers' compensation benefits from Dynasty. Dynasty terminated Beltran's employment on February 24, 1994 and denied his claim for weekly indemnity benefits after learning that Beltran had intentionally misrepresented the fact that he was an illegal alien by presenting false documents to Dynasty at the time he applied for employment. Although it admitted that it could not deny benefits to Beltran solely on the basis of his status as an illegal alien, Dynasty argued that it was entitled to deny the benefits because the contract it entered with Beltran was void or voidable based on Beltran's misrepresentations.
Relying on Barge-Wagener Constr. Co. v. Morales, 263 Ga. 190 (429 S.E.2d 671) (1993), the administrative law judge determined that Beltran was entitled to weekly indemnity benefits, starting on the date he was injured and ending on the date of his termination, on equal protection grounds. The ALJ, however, denied Beltran any income benefits after the date of his termination, finding that Beltran's status as an illegal alien was not a justifiable reason for failing to return to otherwise available and suitable employment existing after the date of his termination. The Appellate Division of the Board of Workers' Compensation adopted the ALJ's findings and award. Beltran did not dispute the decision reached by the ALJ or Board, but Dynasty and its insurer appealed the decision to the superior court. The superior court determined that the ALJ and Board erred in relying on Barge-Wagener. We agree with that determination because Barge-Wagener dealt with a deceased claimant who was presumed to be a legal resident alien or citizen of the United States, and not an illegal alien. Moreover, we note that illegal aliens are clearly not a "suspect classification" for equal protection purposes. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (102 SC 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786) (1982).
The superior court nevertheless concluded that Beltran should receive weekly indemnity benefits based on Ga. Elec. Co. v. Rycroft,
259 Ga. 155 (378 S.E.2d 111) (1989), because Dynasty had failed to demonstrate a causal relation between Beltran's false representations and the injury he suffered. We granted Dynasty and its insurer's application for discretionary appeal to consider whether Rycroft is applicable to the case at bar.
In Rycroft, the Georgia Supreme Court acknowledged that there were limitations to an employer's ability to deny benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act based on claims of fraudulent inducement in the creation of an employment contract. Therefore, the mere fact that under traditional principles of contract law an employment contract might be void or voidable based on misrepresentations made by the employee is not dispositive in the instant case. In Rycroft, the Supreme Court adopted a three part test for determining when fraud in the inducement is sufficient to bar an employee's claim for benefits. Although the three factor test adopted in Rycroft dealt specifically with misrepresentations regarding an employee's pre-existing physical condition, rather than the employee's resident status, in the absence of any clear legislative direction on the issue to the contrary, we conclude that the test is equally applicable to all cases involving fraud in the inducement of a type not specifically addressed by the Workers' Compensation Act. We reach this conclusion in part by noting that fraud of the type involved in Rycroft is even more egregious in relation to workers' compensation than is fraud involving the resident
Page 1 2 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|