Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs

REVISED APRIL 22, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 22, 2010
No. 09-60095 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS INC; AMERICAN LONGSHORE MUTUAL
ASSOCIATION,

Petitioners

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, US
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JORGE RODRIGUEZ,

Respondents

Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Benefits Review Board

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
WIENER, Circuit Judge:
Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. (“Bollinger”), petitions for review of an order of
the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) awarding benefits under the Longshore and
Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“the LHWCA”) to Jorge Rodriguez
(“Rodriguez”), an undocumented immigrant who fell and injured himself while
employed by Bollinger as a pipefitter. We deny the petition.
 No. 09-60095

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
In October 2003, Rodriguez fell and injured himself while performing a
welding job for Bollinger, his employer. At the time of his injury, Rodriguez had
been working as a pipefitter for Bollinger for approximately eight months,
having initially obtained employment with Bollinger after stating falsely that he
was a U.S. citizen and providing the company with a false Social Security
number. Bollinger does not dispute that Rodriguez’s injury occurred in the
course and scope of his employment or that, were it not for his status as an
undocumented immigrant, he would be entitled to benefits under the LHWCA.
Rather, Bollinger contends that, by virtue of Rodriguez’s undocumented status
and his use of a false Social Security number to obtain employment, he should
be precluded from recovering any LHWCA-related benefits.
Bollinger initially paid Rodriguez temporary disability benefits and
reimbursed him for a portion of his medical expenses. After almost two years,
however, Bollinger terminated all payments in November 2005 when it
discovered that Rodriguez was an undocumented immigrant. Rodriguez then
filed for benefits from Bollinger under the LHWCA, and the case proceeded to
an administrative trial.
B. Proceedings
1. The administrative trial
Proceeding pro se before the ALJ, Rodriguez testified that he had first
come to the United States illegally in 1990 and had used a false Social Security
number to obtain a series of jobs, working first as a bartender and then as a
forklift operator in Texas before moving to Louisiana in 1998. In Louisiana,

2
 No. 09-60095

Rodriguez worked for several different employers in the marine industry before
beginning to work as a pipefitter for Bollinger in March 2003.
According to Rodriguez, he was welding an inclined wall of a ship on the
night of his accident when he fell and landed on his back. Rodriguez testified
that he lay on the ground for approximately 10 to 15 minutes before he was able
to stand up and report the incident to a supervisor. According to Rodriguez, his
immediate supervisor instructed him to go home that night and report back the
following day for medical treatment, explaining that it would cost Bollinger
significantly more to have him treated that evening.
Rodriguez further testified that the following day Tim Hargrove,
Bollinger’s “safety man,” filled out an accident report and directed Rodriguez to
seek medical treatment from Dr. Tate. That physician recommended that
Rodriguez be reassigned to light-duty work in the tool room. Rodriguez worked
light duty for less than a month, however, eventually stopping because his back
had worsened progressively to the point that he could no longer work in any
capacity. Rodriguez provided the ALJ with reports from several physicians,
including Dr. Hamsa, who had diagnosed Rodriguez as being temporarily
disabled and unable to perform any work unless he had back surgery, underwent
additional open MRI testing, and received various orthopedic supplies, such as
a cane and back support.
Bollinger called two witnesses: Ray Barker, Bollinger’s corporate
representative; and Larry Stokes, Bollinger’s vocational rehabilitation expert.
Barker testified about Bollinger’s company practices to safeguard against hiring
undocumented workers. According to Barker, the company required prospective

3
 No. 09-60095

employees to submit a valid driver’s license and a Social Security number.1
Barker stated that Bollinger’s primary method of verifying an employee’s
eligibility to work in this country was to send the employee’s Social Security
number to the IRS at the end of the year and then wait to see if the IRS returned
a report indicating that the number was invalid. As Rodriguez had only worked
for Bollinger from March to November, however, Bollinger had not submitted his
Social Security number to the IRS prior to his injury. Barker was unable to
confirm whether Bollinger had attempted to verify Rodriguez’s legal status by
any other means, as the company’s personnel records had been destroyed during
Hurricane Katrina.
Stokes testified regarding his vocational report on Rodriguez’s earning
capacity and job skills. Stokes noted that his efforts in compiling the report were
complicated by Rodriguez’s refusal to participate in any vocational rehabilitation
counseling. He acknowledged, however, that it was not entirely uncommon for
plaintiffs in Rodriguez’s position to decline such counseling. Stokes began his
analysis by observing that, as a threshold matter, Rodriguez was not employable
in the U.S. in any legal capacity because of his status as an undocumented
immigrant; and that, as a result, it would have been improper and unethical for
him to assist Rodriguez in vocational rehabilitation. Nevertheless, for purposes
of comparison, Stokes performed a vocational evaluation of Rodriguez’s earning
capacity without regard to his legal status, concluding that Rodriguez was
capable of performing a variety of light-to-medium-duty jobs that would earn
him between $250 and $600 in average weekly salary. Stokes reiterated,

1
At the time of Rodriguez’s employment with Bollinger, he apparently had a Texas
driver’s license.

4
 No. 09-60095

however, that even if Rodriguez’s injury prevented his performing light-duty
work, he had suffered no loss of legal earning capacity, as he had had no legal
earning capacity prior to being injured.
2. The ALJ’s ruling
The ALJ ruled in favor of Rodriguez on all issues, concluding that he was
unable to work and that he was “not at maximum medical improvement because
of a need for back surgery.” After conducting a thorough review of the evidence
and the testimony of each witness, the ALJ explained that he found Rodriguez
to be a credible witness and that, although he was impressed by each physician
and witness who had testified or submitted reports, he found Dr. Hamsa’s
assessment of Rodriguez’s condition to be the most accurate diagnosis. The ALJ
agreed with Dr. Hamsa’s recommendation that Rodriguez should receive
reasonable and necessary procedures and devices, including back surgery,
additional MRI testing, and orthopedic supplies.
With respect to Rodriguez’s eligibility for benefits under the LHWCA, the
ALJ held that undocumented immigrants such as Rodriguez are indeed eligible
for such benefits. Citing our opinion in Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan,2 the ALJ
concluded that Rodriguez was entitled to benefits under the LHWCA, largely
because Bollinger had failed to present any evidence that Rodriguez was “about
to be deported or would surely be deported.” The ALJ also found persuasive the
D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Rivera v. United Masonry, Inc.,3 in which that court
declined to take into consideration an immigrant’s undocumented status when
determining his eligibility for benefits. The ALJ explained that he had not

2
841 F.2d 582, amended after rehearing, 848 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1988).
3
948 F.2d 774, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

5
 No. 09-60095

considered Rodriguez’s legal status in any way “as a factor in computing
compensation, but rather [had] considered other factors such as pain levels, past
work, and working capacity as considered by the [BRB] and the Fifth Circuit.”
In sum, the ALJ ordered that (1) Bollinger pay Rodriguez temporary total
disability benefits from the date of the accident to the present, with benefits to
continue until Rodriguez reached maximum medical improvement; (2) the
payment should be calculated using the base rate of $568.00 per week, with two-
thirds benefits per statute, totaling $378.67; (3) Bollinger should compensate
Rodriguez for all reasonable past and future medical treatment, including back
surgery, open MRI testing, and appropriate orthopedic devices as recommended
by Dr. Hamsa; and (4) interest should be assessed on all unpaid benefits. After
the ALJ issued his decision, the district director awarded attorney’s fees to
Rodriguez’s prior counsel.
3. Bollinger’s appeal to the BRB
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

6
 No. 09-60095

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

7
 No. 09-60095

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.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a decision of the BRB, our “only function is to correct errors
of law and to determine if the BRB has adhered to its proper scope of review, i.e.,
has the BRB deferred to the ALJ’s fact-finding or has it undertaken de novo
review and substituted its views for the ALJ’s.”5 Stated differently, once the
BRB affirms an order of the ALJ, we need only inquire whether the BRB
“correctly concluded that the [ALJ’s] order was supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the law.”6 Although

4
The BRB also noted, however, that the district director’s award of attorney’s fees to
Rodriguez’s prior counsel was not properly before the BRB on review, as Bollinger had not
appealed that issue.
5
Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vinson, 623 F.2d 1117, 1119 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1980).
6
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993).

8
 No. 09-60095

we review all questions of law de novo, the Director’s interpretation of the
LHWCA is entitled to some degree of deference.7 As for findings of fact, we have
repeatedly acknowledged that the ALJ, as sole factfinder, “is entitled to consider
all credibility inferences [and his] selection among inferences is conclusive if
supported by the evidence and the law.”8
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Bollinger contends that undocumented immigrants such as Rodriguez are
per se ineligible to receive indemnity benefits under the LHWCA, as any such
benefits “would be based on illegally obtained wages.”9 Bollinger reasons that
Rodriguez’s injury caused him no loss of wage-earning capacity because he had
no legal wage-earning capacity at the time he was injured. Bollinger
histrionically compares the BRB’s ruling to “awarding benefits to a drug dealer
based on ill-gotten ‘wages,’ [and] then telling the employer that it better find
another illegal enterprise for the drug dealer, lest there be found a permanent
loss of wage[-]earning capacity.” In the same melodramatic style, Bollinger
compares awarding benefits to Rodriguez to “awarding benefits to a pirate or a
Mafioso.”

7
New Orleans Stevedores v. Ibos, 317 F.3d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 2003). As we have
previously explained, the appropriate amount of deference to be given to the Director’s analysis
“will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning,
its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power
to persuade ...” See id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also H.B. Zachry
Co. v. Quinones, 206 F.3d 474, 478 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Indeed, deference is owed to the Director’s
views and not the views of the [Board].”).
8
Mendoza v. Marine Pers. Co., 46 F.3d 498, 500-01 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
9
In its reply brief, Bollinger narrowed its argument somewhat, contending that only
those undocumented immigrants who falsify employment documents should be precluded from
receiving such benefits.

9
 No. 09-60095

Both Rodriguez and the Director respond straightforwardly that
undocumented immigrants such as Rodriguez are entitled to benefits under the
LHWCA, relying on the statutory text of the LHWCA and Fifth Circuit
precedent as direct support for such an award. Further, the Director describes
Bollinger’s attempts to compare Rodriguez to a “cocaine dealer,” a “car thief,” a
“pirate,” and a “Mafioso” as “offensive, misleading and a gross manipulation of
the reality of the situation.” Moreover, the several amici curiae reason that,
inter alia, “failing to require workers’ compensation for immigrant workers
encourages employers to hire undocumented workers.”
A. The statutory language of the LHWCA
“In answering any statutory question, we begin with the language of the
statute itself.”10 By its express terms, the LHWCA provides workers’
compensation benefits to “employees” who are injured “upon the navigable
waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock,
terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used
by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing dismantling, or building a
vessel).”11 The LHWCA defines an “employee” as “any person engaged in
maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in
longshoring operations....”12 The statute contains several limited exceptions to

10
Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Liuzza, 293 F.3d 741, 745 (5th Cir. 2002);
see Smith v. City of Jackson, 351 F.3d 183, 188 (5th Cir. 2003) (“The construction of a statute
begins with the text of the statute itself.”).
11
33 U.S.C. § 903(a).
12
33 U.S.C. § 902(3) (emphasis added).

10
 No. 09-60095

this definition, but each exception is based on an individual’s job description and
makes no reference to the individual’s immigration status.13
In reviewing similar federal labor and employment laws, both the
Supreme Court and this court have concluded that the subject laws provide
coverage to undocumented immigrants. In Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, the
Supreme Court reviewed the statutory language of the National Labor Relations
Act (“NLRA”) and concluded that, because “undocumented aliens are not among
the few groups of workers expressly exempted by Congress [in that statute], they
plainly come within the broad statutory definition of ‘employee.’”14 Similarly, in
In re Reyes, we reviewed the statutory language of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) and concluded that the statute’s use of the broad term “employees”
reflected the intent of Congress that it apply to “citizens and aliens alike, and
whether the alien is documented or undocumented is irrelevant.”15
We also find persuasive the section of the LHWCA entitled “Aliens,” which
states that “[c]ompensation under [the LHWCA] to aliens not residents (or about
to become nonresidents) of the United States or Canada shall be the same in
amount as provided for residents.”16 Although the statute does not expressly
define the term “alien” and makes no reference to “illegal” or “undocumented”
immigrants, its coverage of nonresident “aliens” is significant. Other courts that

13
For example, the LHWCA’s definition of an “employee” does not encompass, e.g.,
“individuals employed exclusively to perform office clerical, secretarial, security, or data
processing work,” 33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(A), or “individuals employed by a club, camp, recreational
operation, restaurant, museum, or retail outlet,” 33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(B).
14
467 U.S. 883, 981-82 (1984).
15
814 F.2d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1987).
16
33 U.S.C. § 909(g) (emphasis added).

11
 No. 09-60095

have interpreted similar workers’ compensation statutes have concluded that the
unmodified term “alien” encompasses both documented and undocumented
immigrants. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court, in interpreting that
state’s workers’ compensation statute, explained:
The clear language of the Act does not distinguish between
authorized and unauthorized aliens. Following our rules of
statutory construction, when the words of a law are clear and free
from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded
under the pretext of [pursuing] its spirit. Had the legislature
intended to exclude unauthorized aliens from coverage under the
[statute], it could easily have done so, as it did with certain types of
farm workers who are explicitly excluded from the definition of
“employee,” but it did not. Applying the Act as it is written, “aliens,”
whether authorized or unauthorized, are employees and thus are
subject to the Act’s provisions.17

As the plain statutory language of the LHWCA broadly defines the term
“employee” and specifies that nonresident “aliens” are entitled to benefits in the

17
Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc., 664 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn. 2003). Several other
courts have considered this same issue and have reached similar conclusions. For example,
in Economy Packing Co. v. Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission, a state appellate court
explained:

In interpreting a statute, undefined words are given their plain and ordinary
meaning. When unmodified, the term “alien” is broad enough in scope to
encompass any “person who resides within the borders of a country but is not
a citizen or subject of that country.” The plain meaning of aliens, therefore,
includes not only foreign-born citizens that can legally work in the United
States, but also those that cannot. Had the legislature intended otherwise, it
could have defined the term or modified it with more specific language.
Consequently, we conclude that all aliens in the service of another pursuant to
a contract for hire, regardless of their immigration status, are considered
“employees” within the meaning of the Act and, under Illinois law, are entitled
to receive workers’ compensation benefits.

901 N.E.2d 915, 920 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2008).

12
 No. 09-60095

same amount as other claimants, we are convinced beyond cavil that Rodriguez
was an employee within the intendment of the statute and is thus eligible for
workers’ compensation benefits.
B. Fifth Circuit precedent
Our interpretation of the statutory text of the LHWCA is consistent with
our holding in Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan.18 The plaintiff in Hernandez was an
undocumented immigrant employed as a longshore worker and was injured
during the course of his employment.19 The plaintiff sued the vessel and its
owner under Section 5(b) of the LHWCA [33 U.S.C. § 905(b)], which states that
“a person covered under [the LHWCA] ... may bring an action against [the]
vessel as a third party....”20 The district court awarded the plaintiff damages,
including future medical expenses and lost wages based on his prior earnings
during his employment while in the United States.21
On appeal, the vessel owner contended that the employee “should be
deemed ineligible to recover lost future United States wages and United States
medical expenses because he was not entitled to be present and employed in the
United States for the remainder of his life.”22 Rejecting the vessel owner’s
argument, we affirmed the district court’s award of damages to the plaintiff,
including future medical expenses, loss of future earning capacity, and lost

18
841 F.2d 582, amended after rehearing, 848 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1988).
19
841 F.2d at 585.
20
Id. As the plaintiff in Hernandez had sued in tort, the case did not proceed to an ALJ
but was instead decided by a district court.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 588.

13
 No. 09-60095

future wages.23 As we explained, the primary issue on appeal was whether,
given the plaintiff’s status as an undocumented immigrant, “the district court’s
decision to grant damages ... for future lost wages based upon [the plaintiff’s]
employment status at the time of injury and for the lengthy period preceding
injury was clearly erroneous.”24 After reviewing the record evidence and the
statutory text of the LHWCA, we concluded that the district court had not so
erred.25 Thus, although we did not directly address the issue in our opinion,
Hernandez stands for the proposition that undocumented immigrants are
eligible to recover workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA.26
C. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Undeterred, Bollinger insists that we must not end our analysis with
either the statutory text of the LHWCA or our precedential decisions on this
issue, but that we must now interpret the LHWCA in light of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“the IRCA”), a “comprehensive scheme

23
Id. We did, however, reduce some of the individual damages as excessive. For
example, we ruled that the district court’s award of more than $800,000 in lost future wages
was excessive, and, after reviewing the record evidence and the testimony, we reduced that
amount to $190,296.
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
Bollinger contends that Hernandez is distinguishable from the instant case because
the primary issue in Hernandez was whether the claimant’s “continuous residency” in the
United States qualified him to receive LHWCA benefits. Bollinger’s argument, however, is
based on a portion of Hernandez that was later withdrawn on rehearing. See Hernandez v.
M/V Rajaan, 848 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1988). In our initial opinion, we had suggested that the
claimant “likely” qualified for permanent residency under the IRCA, thus ameliorating any
tension with the immigration policies expressed in that statute. On rehearing, however, we
noted that it was “improper” to speculate as to whether the claimant qualified for such relief,
as the issue had not been briefed and was, in any event, immaterial to our holding.

14
 No. 09-60095

prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States.”27 According
to Bollinger, regardless whether the statutory text of the LHWCA or our
precedent supports an award of benefits to Rodriguez, such an award would
undermine the immigration policies expressed by Congress in the IRCA.
Although we agree with Bollinger’s basic premise that a thorough review of the
IRCA is prudent, we disagree that the BRB’s ruling in any way undermines the
congressional policies embedded in the IRCA.
In enacting the IRCA, Congress “forcefully made combating the
employment of illegal aliens central to the policy of immigration law.”28
Congress thus focused foremost on the employer.29 Under the IRCA, employers
must verify the identity and eligibility of all new hires by examining specified
documents before each employee begins work.30 If a prospective new hire is
unable to produce the required documentation, the employer may not hire the
individual.31 Employers that violate the IRCA are punished by civil fines and
may be subject to criminal prosecution.32
The IRCA does make it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to subvert
this employer-verification system by tendering false or fraudulent documents for

27
See Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).
28
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
29
See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (“Unlawful employment of aliens”).
30
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b).
31
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1).
32
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(f)(1).

15
 No. 09-60095

purposes of obtaining employment in the United States.33 Specifically, the IRCA
subjects any individual who uses or attempts to use such documents to fines and
criminal prosecution, providing nothing regarding civil effects.34 More to the
point, the parties do not dispute that Rodriguez violated the IRCA when he
proffered a false Social Security number to obtain employment with Bollinger.
Rather, the question is whether that violation precludes his eligibility to receive
workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA. To answer this question, we
must consider it in the framework of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman
Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, the most recent in a line of cases reviewing
backpay-reinstatement orders by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”)
that are in tension with other federal laws.35
The line of cases of which Hoffman is the most recent can be traced back
to Southern S.S. Co. v. NLRB, in which the World War II-era Court reviewed an
NLRB order reinstating several seamen who had engaged in a labor strike while
their vessel was midway through its voyage.36 In Southern S.S., the Court
concluded that the seamen had committed mutiny in direct violation of the
criminal code.37 As the Court explained,
[t]he difficulty with the [NLRB’s reinstatement order] is that it
ignores the plain Congressional mandate that a rebellion by seamen
against their officers on board a vessel anywhere within the

33
8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(1)-(3).
34
18 U.S.C. § 1546(b).
35
535 U.S. 138 (2002).
36
316 U.S. 31, 48-49 (1942).
37
Id. at 43.

16
 No. 09-60095

admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States is to be
punished as a mutiny. If this mandate is to be changed, it must be
changed by Congress and not by the Courts....

The Board has not been commissioned to effectuate the policies of
the Labor Relations Act so single-mindedly that it may wholly
ignore other and equally important Congressional objectives.
Frequently the entire scope of Congressional purpose calls for
careful accommodation of one statutory scheme to another, and it is
not too much to demand of an administrative body that it undertake
this accommodation without excessive emphasis on its immediate
task.38

In the next decision in the Hoffman line of cases, Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB,
the Court reviewed an NLRB order providing undocumented workers with
backpay for their employer’s labor-law violation.39 In Sure-Tan, several
undocumented workers had elected to form a union, and their employer
retaliated by reporting them to authorities as undocumented immigrants and
having them deported.40 The issue before the Court was whether, assuming the
employer had committed a labor violation, the undocumented employees were
eligible for backpay for the period during which they had been deported.41
The Court began its analysis by confirming that undocumented
immigrants are “employees” within the intendment of the NLRA and are thus

38
Id. at 43-47.
39
467 U.S. 883 (1984).
40
Id. at 886-89.
41
Id.

17
 No. 09-60095

entitled to its protections.42 As the Court also explained, however, “[i]n devising
remedies for unfair labor practices, the [NLRB] is obliged to take into account
another equally important Congressional objective — to wit, the objective of
deterring unauthorized immigration that is embodied in the [Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”)].”43 Concluding that the backpay award would have
undermined the immigration policies expressed by Congress in the INA, the
Court vacated the NLRB’s order.44 Although acknowledging “[t]he probable
unavailability of the [NLRA’s] more effective remedies in light of the practical
workings of the immigration laws,” the Court explained that “[a]ny perceived
deficiencies in the NLRA’s existing remedial arsenal can only be addressed by
congressional action.”45
The most recent decision in this line of cases is Hoffman Plastic
Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, in which the Court held that federal immigration
policy, as expressed by Congress in the IRCA, precluded the NLRB from
awarding backpay to an undocumented immigrant who had never been legally
authorized to work in the United States.46 As in Sure-Tan, the employer in
Hoffman had fired an employee for attempting to organize a union — a clear

42
Id. at 891-92 (“Since undocumented aliens are not among the few groups of workers
expressly exempted by Congress, they plainly come within the broad statutory definition of
‘employee.’”).
43
Id. at 903.
44
Id.
45
Id. at 904.
46
535 U.S. 138 (2002).

18
 No. 09-60095

violation of the NLRA.47 Among other remedies, the NLRB ordered that the
employer offer the employee reinstatement with backpay.48 At a subsequent
hearing before the ALJ, however, the employee testified that he was an
undocumented immigrant and that he had used fraudulent documents to obtain
employment.49 Concluding that “the most effective way to accommodate and
further the immigration policies embodied in [the IRCA] is to provide the
protections and remedies of the [NLRA] to undocumented workers in the same
manner as to other employees,” the NLRB ordered the employer to provide the
employee with backpay from the date of his termination to the date the employer
first learned of the employee’s undocumented status.50
Framing the issue before it as whether the NLRB had exceeded its
discretion by awarding backpay “to an illegal alien for years of work not
performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and for a job
obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud,” the Court in Hoffman vacated
the NLRB’s order.51 The Court began its analysis by summarizing its prior
decisions in Southern S.S. and Sure-Tan, explaining that those cases stand for
the proposition that, “where the [NLRB’s] chosen remedy trenches upon a
federal statute or policy outside the Board’s competence to administer, the

47
Id. at 140.
48
Id. at 140-41.
49
Id. at 141.
50
Id. at 141-42.
51
Id. at 152.

19
 No. 09-60095

Board’s remedy may be required to yield.”52 The Court then highlighted an
important development in federal law that had occurred post-Sure-Tan:
Congress’s passage of the IRCA.53 As the Court noted, “[u]nder the IRCA
regime, it is impossible for an undocumented alien to obtain employment in the
United States without some party directly contravening explicit congressional
policies.”54 According to the Court, the NLRB’s order ran “counter to policies
underlying the IRCA, policies the Board has no authority to enforce or
administer.”55 The Court explained:
What matters here ... is that Congress has expressly made it
criminally punishable for an alien to obtain employment with false
documents. There is no reason to think that Congress nonetheless
intended to permit backpay where but for an employer’s unfair labor
practices, an alien-employee would have remained in the United
States illegally, and continued to work illegally, all the while
successfully evading apprehension by immigration authorities....

The Board admits that had the INS detained [the employee], or had
[the employee] obeyed the law and departed to Mexico, [he] would
have lost his right to backpay. [The employee] thus qualifies for the
Board’s award only by remaining inside the United States illegally.
Similarly, [the employee] cannot mitigate damages, a duty our cases
require, without triggering new IRCA violations, either by tendering
false documents to employers or by finding employers willing to
ignore IRCA and hire illegal workers. The Board here has failed to
even consider this tension.

52
Id. at 147.
53
Id. at 147-48.
54
Id. at 148.
55
Id. at 149.

20
 No. 09-60095

We therefore conclude that allowing the Board to award backpay to
illegal aliens would unduly trench upon explicit statutory
prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy, as expressed in
IRCA. It would encourage the successful evasion of apprehension
by immigration authorities, condone prior violations of the
immigration laws, and encourage future violations. However broad
the Board’s discretion to fashion remedies when dealing only with
the NLRA, it is not so unbounded as to authorize this sort of an
award.56

Agreeing with the Director’s interpretation of the LHWCA in the instant
case, we conclude that the Hoffman line of cases is distinguishable for at least
three significant reasons: (1) Unlike discretionary backpay under the NLRA,
workers’ compensation under the LHWCA is a non-discretionary, statutory
remedy; (2) unlike the NLRA, the LHWCA is a substitute for tort law,
abrogating fault of either the employer or the employee; and (3) awarding death
or disability benefits post hoc to an undocumented immigrant under the LHWCA
does not “unduly trench upon” the IRCA, as Congress chose to include a
provision in the LHWCA expressly authorizing the award of benefits “in the
same amount” to nonresident aliens.

1. Workers’ compensation under the LHWCA is a non-
discretionary remedy
As the Court’s decision in Hoffman makes clear, backpay under the NLRA
is merely one of several discretionary remedies available to the NLRB in
addressing labor violations.57 In addition to backpay, the NLRB has authority
to order several other “traditional remedies sufficient to effectuate national labor

56
Id. at 149-52 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
57
Id. at 144.

21
 No. 09-60095

policy regardless of whether the spur and catalyst of backpay accompanies
them.”58 For example, the Court in Hoffman concluded that the NLRB’s other
available remedies, e.g., requiring the employer to post appropriate notices in the
workplace, would have effectively promoted the goals of the NLRA without
unduly trenching on the policy goals set forth in the IRCA.59
In contrast, awarding workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA
is a non-discretionary remedy. Indeed, the plain statutory text of the LHWCA
mandatorily states that “compensation shall be payable under this chapter in
respect of disability or death of an employee.”60 The LHWCA, unlike the NLRA,
does not contain any optional or alternative remedies that could otherwise fulfill
the statute’s purpose.

2. The LHWCA was enacted as a substitute for tort claims
Unlike the NLRA, but like most workers’ compensation statutes, the
LHWCA’s remedial scheme is a substitute for the tort claims that an injured
employee could otherwise bring against his employer. Indeed, the LHWCA
specifies that an employer’s liability under the statute is “exclusive and in place
of all other liability of such employer to the employee ...”61 Only if the employer
“fails to secure payment of compensation” may an eligible employee “maintain
an action at law or in admiralty for damages.”62 Therefore, under the quid pro

58
Id.
59
Id.
60
33 U.S.C. § 903(a) (emphasis added).
61
33 U.S.C. § 905(a).
62
Id.

22
 No. 09-60095

quo of the LHWCA, an employee who is eligible for benefits is stripped of his
right to sue “at law or in admiralty” in exchange for gaining “a certain, but
limited, recovery under a strict liability regime.”63 As the Supreme Court has
explained,
the LHWCA represents a compromise between the competing
interests of disabled laborers and their employers. The use of a
schedule of fixed benefits as an exclusive remedy in certain cases is
consistent with the employees’ interest in receiving a prompt and
certain recovery for their industrial injuries as well as with the
employers’ interest in having their contingent liabilities identified
as precisely and as early as possible.64

As we have previously held in Hernandez that an undocumented
immigrant employed as a longshoreman has the right to sue a vessel owner in
tort for negligence, it follows that Rodriguez must have the corresponding right,
viz., the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA.65
Indeed, the remedy provided by the LHWCA is merely a substitute for the
negligence claim that an employee could otherwise bring against his employer
in tort. As one court has observed, “it would not only be illogical but it would
also serve no discernable purpose to accord illegal aliens the right to bring
affirmative claims in tort for personal injury but deny them the right to pursue
the substitutionary remedy for personal injuries sustained in the workplace.”66

63
Taylor v. Bunge Corp., 845 F.2d 1323, 1326 (5th Cir. 1988).
64
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 258, 282 (1980).
65
See Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan, 841 F.2d 582, amended after rehearing, 848 F.2d 498
(5th Cir. 1988).
66
Mendoza v. Monmouth Recycling Corp., 672 A.2d 221, 225 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1996). Given that the LHWCA embodies a quid pro quo, we also question whether
undocumented immigrants not eligible for benefits would be bound by the LHWCA’s

23
 No. 09-60095

In a closely analogous case, the Court of Appeals of New York held that a
minor employee who had lied about his age to obtain employment could not sue
his employer in tort because the employee — despite his illegal act in falsifying
his age — was covered by that state’s workers’ compensation statute, which
contained an exclusivity provision protecting the employer from liability in tort.67
This venerable holding remains unchanged and is particularly relevant today:
As the Supreme Court has noted, the LHWCA was largely patterned on New
York’s workers’ compensation statute.68 Thus, in Mellen v. H.B. Hirsch & Sons,
Inc., the D.C. Circuit looked to New York law to determine whether an illegally-
employed minor working as a longshoreman could sue his employer in tort.69
Basing its analysis largely on New York courts’ interpretations of that state’s
workers’ compensation statute, the court in Mellen held that the minor —
despite having subverted child labor laws to obtain employment — was covered
under the LHWCA and was thus subject to the LHWCA’s exclusivity provision
barring him from proceeding in tort.70

3. The LHWCA expressly provides for the award of benefits to
nonresident aliens

exclusivity provision.
67
See Noreen v. William Vogel & Bros., Inc., 231 N.Y. 317, 319-22 (1921).
68
See Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268, 274 (1980). As the
Court explained, “[n]othing in the original legislative history of the [LHWCA] or in the
legislative history of subsequent amendments indicates that Congress did not intend the plain
language of the federal statute [and its exclusivity provision] to receive the same construction
as the substantially identical language of its New York ancestor.” Id.
69
159 F.2d 461, 461 (D.C. Cir. 1947).
70
Id.

24
 No. 09-60095

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, awarding benefits to an
undocumented worker under the LHWCA does not appear to “unduly trench
upon explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy.”71 This
is because the LHWCA expressly provides for the award of benefits to
nonresident aliens.72 In Hoffman, the Court noted as particularly troubling that
the NLRB’s award of backpay undermined federal immigration policy by
encouraging — and even rewarding — continued violations of the IRCA.73 The
Court was critical of the backpay award in part because the employee in that
case qualified for the award “only by remaining inside the United States
illegally.” The Court also noted that the employee was unable to mitigate his
damages as required by law without “triggering new IRCA violations, either by
tendering false documents to employers or by finding employers willing to ignore
IRCA and hire illegal workers.”74
There is no parallel tension in the instant case, however, because LWHCA
claimants are not required to mitigate their damages by working. Rather, the
LHWCA provides that an employee’s compensation rate may be reduced if the
employer can demonstrate that the employee is physically capable of returning
to work. Moreover, the LHWCA, by its express terms, does not require
claimants to remain in the United States.75 Indeed, the LHWCA specifies that

71
See Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).
72
Id. at 152.
73
Id.
74
Id.
75
33 U.S.C. § 905(g).

25
 No. 09-60095

nonresident aliens and aliens who are about to become nonresidents “shall be”
entitled to compensation in the same amount as provided for residents.76 Thus,
Rodriguez’s eligibility to receive benefits is in no way contingent on his
continuing to violate the IRCA or evade immigration authorities. Neither is
Rodriguez being “rewarded” for a past violation of the IRCA, as workers’
compensation is not backpay, but compensation for an injury incurred.
In sum, having reviewed the statutory text of the LHWCA, our
precedential decision in Hernandez, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Hoffman, we are convinced that Rodriguez is eligible to receive benefits under
the LHWCA.
D. The ALJ’s factual findings
Bollinger next urges that, even if Rodriguez is eligible to receive workers’
compensation benefits, the ALJ erred in determining, inter alia, the amount and
extent of those benefits. As stated above, if the BRB has affirmed an order of the
ALJ, we need only inquire whether the BRB “correctly concluded that the
[ALJ’s] order was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole
and is in accordance with the law.”77 As sole factfinder, the ALJ “is entitled to
consider all inferences [and his] selection among inferences is conclusive if
supported by the evidence and the law.”78 Having thoroughly reviewed the
record evidence, we are satisfied that the BRB correctly determined that the
ALJ’s findings are based on substantial evidence.

76
Id.
77
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993).
78
Mendoza v. Marine Pers. Co., Inc., 46 F.3d 498, 500-01 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).

26
 No. 09-60095

IV. CONCLUSION
Bollinger’s petition for review is, in all respects,
DENIED.

27
 No. 09-60095

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result.
I concur in the result. The ALJ and the BRB both rejected Bollinger’s
reliance on Rodriguez’s being an illegal alien subject to deportation under the
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, on the basis that Bollinger had not
established that Rodriguez “was about to be deported or would surely be
deported” as provided in our opinion on rehearing in Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan,
848 F.2d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1988). There we stated:
“The question here is whether, given Hernandez’s status as an illegal
alien, the district court’s decision to grant damages to Hernandez for future
lost wages based upon his employment status at the time of injury and for the
lengthy period preceding injury was clearly erroneous. . . . We conclude that
it was not.

The burden of proof in the calculation of damages was initially on
Hernandez who had to establish the damages his injury had caused and was
likely to cause in the future. Once Hernandez proved his prior wages in the
United States, the burden shifted to Dianella [the vessel owner] to establish
that the use of past wages to calculate future damages was factually improper
and, if so, what a proper measure of damages should be. Because Dianella
presented no proof that Hernandez was about to be deported or would surely
be deported, the court did not err in basing its award on Hernandez’s past
earnings stream. Dianella is liable to make Hernandez whole for the injury
inflicted. It cannot defeat his right to recover by asserting that his award for
future lost wages should be based upon speculation regarding what he might
be earning were he in Mexico.”
While it is true that Hernandez was a suit under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), that does not serve to
distinguish it for these purposes, because, as the director points out, § 905(b) actions are only
available to those covered under the LHWCA. Bollinger does not dispute that.
The record contains no evidence that Rodriguez is, or was when he was
injured in October 2003, or has been at any time since then, “about to be
 No. 09-60095

deported” or “would surely be deported,” and Bollinger makes no meaningful
contention otherwise. Accordingly, we are bound by Hernandez. I would leave
it at that.

29