Opinion ID: 72032
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bollinger's appeal to the BRB

Text: Bollinger appealed the ALJ's ruling to the BRB, contending that the ALJ had fundamentally erred in concluding that Rodriguez, an undocumented immigrant, was entitled to benefits under the LHWCA. In the alternative, Bollinger urged the BRB to conclude that the ALJ's factual findings were in error and were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. According to Bollinger, the ALJ had, inter alia, failed to give adequate consideration to Stokes's vocational report identifying suitable alternate employment for Rodriguez. After conducting a complete review of the trial record and the evidence submitted to the ALJ, the BRB affirmed the ALJ's order in all respects. As a threshold matter, the BRB held that undocumented immigrants such as Rodriguez are indeed entitled to benefits under the LHWCA. Citing our decision in Hernandez, the BRB agreed with the ALJ that Rodriguez was entitled to compensation given Bollinger's failure to show that Rodriguez's deportation was imminent. Further, the BRB approved the ALJ's reliance on the D.C. Circuit's decision in Rivera for the proposition that the issue of illegal alienage does not affect compensation entitlement under the [LHWCA]. Finally, the BRB reviewed the plain language of the LHWCA and concluded that the text of the statute reflected Congress's intent to provide coverage for undocumented immigrants. As the BRB explained, [t]he [LHWCA's] definition of employee does not differentiate between individuals based on their citizenship status. Rather, [33 U.S.C. § 902(3)] in pertinent part, states that the term `employee' means any person engaged in maritime employment ... (emphasis added). Additionally, while the definition includes specific exceptions to the term employee, none of those exceptions precludes coverage based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Furthermore, [33 U.S.C. § 909(g)] and its implementing regulation ... state that compensation paid to aliens not residents, or about to become nonresidents, of the United States or Canada, shall be in the same amount as provided for residents, with certain exceptions relating to a claimant's dependents in a foreign country and a provision allowing the Secretary to commute future payments. Thus, the Act does not differentiate between the disability compensation paid to illegal aliens and that paid to legal residents and/or citizens of the United States. Consequently, we reject [Bollinger's] contention that [Rodriguez's] status as an illegal alien precludes [his] entitlement to benefits. With respect to the ALJ's factual findings, the BRB reviewed the evidence in detail before concluding that the findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. According to the BRB, the ALJ had rationally accorded greatest weight to [Rodriguez's] description of the back pain he experienced ... along with the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Hamsa, who has consistently stated that the October 22, 2003, back injury prevents [Rodriguez] from performing any work. The BRB also affirmed the ALJ's award of interest on all unpaid benefits, as well as the district director's award of attorney's fees to Rodriguez's prior counsel, explaining that Bollinger's arguments on both issues [were] premised on its position that the administrative law judge improperly awarded benefits in this case, which we have rejected. [4] Bollinger now petitions for review of the BRB's decision. Both Rodriguez and the Director for the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs of the United States Department of Labor (the Director) have filed responses. In addition, several amici curiae, including the Pro Bono Project of New Orleans, the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Employment Law Project, have joined in the filing of a brief in support of Rodriguez's eligibility for benefits under the LHWCA.