COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Clements
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
TEODOSIA ALVARADO, WIDOW OF JOSE AUCEDA-MATAMOROS,
LESLIE MELISSA AUCEDA (INFANT) AND
JANIRA EMILIA AUCEDA (INFANT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0981-00-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JANUARY 9, 2001
MARK KRAJEWSKI,
EAKIN YOUNGENTOB ASSOCIATES, INC.,
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY
OF THE MIDWEST,
B & T CONTRACTING, INC.,
NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW YORK AND
UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Raul J. Romero, III (Trapeni, Romero &
Morrison, P.C., on brief), for appellants.
William J. Minor, Jr., for appellee Mark
Krajewski.
Kevin J. O'Connell (O'Connell & O'Connell,
on brief), for appellees Eakin Youngentob
Associates, Inc. and Hartford Insurance
Company of the Midwest.
William S. Sands, Jr. (Duncan and Hopkins,
P.C., on brief), for appellees B & T
Contracting, Inc. and Northern Insurance
Company of New York.
No brief or argument for appellee Uninsured
Employer's Fund.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Teodosia Alvarado, et al., appeal the decision of the
Workers' Compensation Commission dismissing their claim for lack
of jurisdiction. They argue that the full commission erred as a
matter of law by applying retroactively Granados v. Windson
Development Corp., 257 Va. 103, 509 S.E.2d 290 (1999), which
held that illegal aliens are not "employees" under Code
§ 65.2-101. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 14, 1997, while working for Mark Krajewski, Jose
Auceda-Matamoros suffered an injury that resulted in his death.
A claim for benefits was filed by his widow, Teodosia Alvarado,
and their two children seeking death benefits and funeral
expenses. Mark Krajewski, the uninsured employer, B & T
Contracting, Inc. (B & T) and Eakin Youngentob Associates, Inc.
(Eakin), as statutory employers, and the Uninsured Employer's
Fund, collectively referred to as the "employer," defended the
claim based on the commission's lack of jurisdiction.
Matamoros was an illegal alien when the injury occurred.
The employer moved to dismiss the claim, alleging that Matamoros
was an illegal alien and, therefore, was not an "employee" under
Code § 65.2-101. Citing Granados, the deputy commissioner
dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The full
commission affirmed.
- 2 -
II. ANALYSIS
The claimants contend that the commission erred in applying
Granados retroactively. We disagree.
In Granados, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether
an undocumented alien was an "employee" as defined in Code
§ 65.2-101. Granados, 257 Va. at 108, 509 S.E.2d at 290. The
Court noted that under the provisions of the United States
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 an
undocumented alien could not lawfully contract for hire and,
therefore, could not satisfy the definition of "employee" under
the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act (Act). Id. at 108-09,
509 S.E.2d at 290.
The authority relied upon by the Supreme Court in reaching
its decision was in place well before the accidents that
occurred in either this case or the Granados case. The IRCA,
prohibiting illegal aliens from working in the United States,
has been in effect since 1986. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a).
Furthermore, the Act's definition of "employee," to-wit:
"[e]very person, including a minor, in the service of another
under any contract for hire," was the law in Virginia prior to
Matamoros' injury. Code § 65.2-101.
Granados neither overruled a prior judicial decision nor
established a new principle of law. It construed no new
statutory language. Therefore, it properly controls all
subsequent decisions.
- 3 -
The claimants argue that Granados does not apply to them,
because, unlike the claimant in Granados, Matamoros did not
misrepresent his status as an illegal alien and Krajewski made
no inquiry as to that status. However, the decision in Granados
turned neither on the employee's misrepresentation nor on the
employer's inquiry. See Granados, 257 Va. at 108-09, 509 S.E.2d
at 293. Rather, the Supreme Court held, "Granados was not
eligible to receive compensation benefits as an 'employee' under
the Act because his purported contract of hire was void and
unenforceable." Id.
The decision of the commission is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -