Duran v. Goff Group, 2070763.

• Decision Date: 06 February 2009
• Docket Number: 2070763.
• Parties: Reynalda Alanis DURAN et al. v. GOFF GROUP.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

23 So.3d 45

Reynalda Alanis DURAN et al. v. GOFF GROUP.

2070763.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 6, 2009.

Certiorari Denied May 8, 2009.

Alabama Supreme Court 1080592.

Greg L. Davis, Montgomery, for appellants.

Joseph H. Driver of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.

PITTMAN, Judge.

In Taliaferro v. Goff Group, 947 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), this court considered an appeal from a judgment of the Shelby Circuit Court determining that under § 25-5-82, Ala.Code 1975, a portion of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"), no compensation benefits were payable to the dependents of Luis Martinez Silva ("the employee"), i.e., Reynalda Alanis Duran, Martin Martinez Alanis, and Carlos Martinez Alanis (collectively, "the dependents"), on account of the employee's death. We reversed the trial court's judgment on purely procedural grounds in Goff, holding that the dependents were necessary parties that had not yet been joined in the action:

"The present case involves death benefits payable to dependents under the Workers' Compensation Act. Under Alabama law, those benefits, and the right to bring an action for their recovery, belong solely to the dependents of the deceased worker. Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-60; Lawrence v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 226 Ala. 161, 164-65, 145 So. 577, 580 (1933); Baughn v. Little Cahaba Coal Co., 213 Ala. 596, 597, 105 So. 648, 649 (1925); and Ex parte Havard, 211 Ala. 605, 607, 100 So. 897, 898 (1924). So long as there are dependents, the deceased worker's estate is not the proper party to bring a suit to recover death benefits. See id."

947 So.2d at 1078 (emphasis added). On remand from this court, the dependents were joined as parties, and, ultimately, a new judgment was entered by the trial court that again determined, in pertinent part, that no compensation benefits were payable to the dependents; in that judgment, the trial court stated:

"The Alabama Workers' Compensation Act provides:

"`Compensation for the death of an employee shall be paid only to dependents who, at the time of the death of the injured employee, were actually residents of the United States. No right of action to recover damages for the death of an employee shall exist in favor or for the benefit of any person who was not a resident of the United States at the time of the death of such employee.'

"Ala.Code[ 1975, § 25-5-82]. . . .

"None of the dependents [resided in the] United States at the time of the death of [the employee]. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the dependents are not entitled to recover death benefits under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act. The dependents contend that [§] 25-5-82 is unconstitutional. However, this section has never been deemed unconstitutional, and the Court denies the dependents' claims for benefits under the Act."

The dependents timely appealed from the trial court's judgment on remand. Their sole contention on appeal is that § 25-5-82, by denying death benefits to nonresident alien dependents of deceased workers who are subject to the Act, contravenes equal-protection and due-process guaranties contained in the United States Constitution. However, the dependents, being neither citizens of nor resident aliens in the United States, are not entitled to invoke those constitutional guaranties on their own behalf, because those guaranties are inapplicable to nonresident noncitizens. As the United States Supreme Court noted in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), leading cases of that Court discussing federal constitutional rights of aliens, such as those relied upon by the dependents in this appeal, "establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country" (emphasis added).

Perhaps cognizant of their tenuous claim to federal constitutional protection in their own individual capacities, the dependents attempt to assert in their brief to this court the rights of the employee not to be discriminated against. Their attempt to do so is perhaps unsurprising given the split of authority among the various American decisions that have addressed state-law restrictions upon full payment of workers' compensation death benefits to nonresident noncitizen dependents. The majority of those cases have upheld the power of state legislatures to distinguish between resident alien beneficiaries and nonresident alien beneficiaries. Jalifi v. Industrial Comm'n of Arizona, 132 Ariz. 233, 235-36, 644 P.2d 1319, 1321-22 (Ct. App.1982) (60% benefit limitation); Barge-Wagener Constr. Co. v. Morales, 263 Ga. 190, 191-93, 429 S.E.2d 671, 672-73 (1993) ($1,000 benefit limitation); Jarabe v. Industrial Comm'n, 172 Ill.2d 345, 348-51, 666 N.E.2d 1, 3-4, 216 Ill.Dec. 833, 835-36 (1996) (50% benefit limitation); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Chamos, 203 Ky. 820, 821, 263 S.W. 370, 371-72 (1924) (50% benefit limitation); Gregutis v. Waclark Wire Works, 86 N.J.L. 610, 614-15, 92 A. 354, 355-56 (1914) (total bar to benefits); Pedrazza v. Sid Fleming Contractor, Inc., 94 N.M. 59, 61-63, 607 P.2d 597, 599-601 (1980) (total bar to benefits); Alvarez Martinez v. Industrial Comm'n of Utah, 720 P.2d 416, 417-19 (Utah 1986) (50% benefit limitation); cf. Gambalan v. Kekaha Sugar Co., 39 Haw. 258 (1952) (American territory's total bar to benefits summarily held constitutional). The Florida and Kansas opinions heavily relied upon by the dependents that hold to the contrary, i.e., De Ayala v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 543 So.2d 204 (Fla.1989), and Jurado v. Popejoy Construction Co., 253 Kan. 116, 853 P.2d 669 (1993), are in the clear minority.

In Jarabe v. Industrial Commission, supra, the Illinois Supreme Court considered the competing lines of authority as to restrictions on payability of workers' compensation death benefits to nonresident aliens and expressly sided with the majority line of cases, opining that it had been "persuaded by those courts which have concluded that the nonresident aliens challenging the constitutionality of similar statutes lack the requisite standing to do so." 172 Ill.2d at 350, 666 N.E.2d at 3, 216 Ill.Dec. at 835. In rejecting "the notion that a nonresident alien beneficiary may step into the constitutional shoes of the deceased employee," id., the Jarabe court noted that under Illinois precedent, in contrast to Florida and Kansas precedent, "a deceased employee's beneficiary under the workers' compensation statute has no rights derivative of the deceased employee" (id. at 350, 666 N.E.2d at 4, 216 Ill. Dec. at 836), and that a right of action for death benefits "is a statutory benefit exclusively for the dependents and over which the employee has no control and is powerless to release, waive or extinguish" (id. at 350-51, 666 N.E.2d at 4, 216 Ill.Dec. at 836).

...