Margarita Mendoza-Garcia v. Cho Yeon Hwi ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Clements
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
MARGARITA MENDOZA-GARCIA
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1257-00-4 JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS
MARCH 27, 2001
CHO YEON HWI/BEST CLEANERS AND
UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Manuel R. Geraldo (Robinson & Geraldo, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant.
Paul S. Stahl, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; John J.
Beall, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee Uninsured
Employer's Fund.
No brief or argument for appellee Cho Yeon
Hwi/Best Cleaners.
Margarita Mendoza-Garcia appeals the decision of the Workers'
Compensation Commission dismissing her claim for lack of
jurisdiction. She contends that the full commission, in
dismissing her claim for benefits based on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Granados v. Windson Development Corp., 257 Va.
103, 509 S.E.2d 290 (1999), erred as a matter of law. We disagree
and affirm the decision of the commission.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
As the parties are fully conversant with the record in this
case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential
value, this opinion recites only those facts necessary to a
disposition of this appeal.
Mendoza-Garcia was injured while working on January 22, 1999.
She concedes that she was an undocumented alien at the time who
was not authorized to legally work in the United States. She
argues, however, that Granados does not apply to her because she
did not misrepresent, and her employer did not inquire about, her
immigration status. Furthermore, applying Granados to her claim,
she contends, violates public policy and denies her equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of
Virginia. Finally, she asks us to retroactively apply to her
claim the 2000 amendment to Code § 65.2-101 that added "aliens
. . . whether lawfully or unlawfully employed" to the definition
of "employee."
In Granados, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether
an undocumented alien was an "employee" as defined in Code
§ 65.2-101. The Court held that, under the provisions of the
United States Immigration Reform and Control Act 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. Granados, 257 Va. at
108-09, 509 S.E.2d at 293.
- 2 -
Mendoza-Garcia first argues that Granados does not apply to
her, because she, unlike the claimant in Granados, did not
misrepresent her status as an illegal alien. Furthermore, she
adds, her employer, Cho Yeon Hwi/Best Cleaners, unlike the
employer in Granados, made no inquiry about her status. However,
the decision in Granados turned neither on the employee's
misrepresentation nor on the employer's inquiry regarding the
employee's status. Rather, the Supreme Court held that "Granados
was not eligible to receive compensation benefits as an 'employee'
under the [Virginia Workers' Compensation Act] because his
purported contract of hire was void and unenforceable." Id.
Mendoza-Garcia next argues that to apply Granados to the
facts of her case would only serve to encourage employers to
violate federal and state law. Therefore, her argument continues,
she should be eligible for benefits on public policy grounds. We
must, however, adhere to the holding of the Supreme Court of
Virginia in Granados. See Roane v. Roane, 12 Va. App. 989, 993,
407 S.E.2d 698, 700 (1991) (noting that we are bound by the
Supreme Court's decisions and are without authority to overrule
them). To the extent that Mendoza-Garcia invites us to decide
this case as a matter of public policy, we decline her invitation,
recognizing that "public policy . . . considerations belong
exclusively in the legislative domain." Infants v. Virginia Hous.
Dev. Auth., 221 Va. 659, 671, 272 S.E.2d 649, 656 (1980).
- 3 -
Mendoza-Garcia further argues that applying Granados to this
case would deny her equal protection under the law. However, the
Supreme Court unequivocally rejected this argument in Granados.
There, the Court found that the denial of workers' compensation
benefits did not violate the claimant's constitutional right of
equal protection because "[t]he denial of benefits result[ed] from
Granados' failure to meet his burden of proving that he was an
'employee' under the [Virginia Workers' Compensation Act], not
from his status as an illegal alien." Granados, 257 Va. at 109,
509 S.E.2d at 293.
Lastly, Mendoza-Garcia urges us to apply the 2000 amendment
to Code § 65.2-101 that took effect April 19, 2000,
retroactively to her claim. The legislature, she asserts, in
including "aliens . . . whether lawfully or unlawfully employed"
within the definition of an "employee," expressed its
disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Granados.
Therefore, she continues, to achieve the benevolent purpose of
the Workers' Compensation Act, we should apply the amendment
retroactively.
Again, though, we are bound by the decision of the Supreme
Court in Granados. The Court interpreted in that case the
version of Code § 65.2-101 that was applicable to this case. We
may not now ignore the Court's interpretation of the applicable
law merely because of a subsequent change in the statute. The
general rule is that a statute will always be construed as
- 4 -
operating prospectively, rather than retrospectively, unless the
legislature makes a contrary intent manifest. Duffy v.
Hartstock, 187 Va. 406, 419, 46 S.E.2d 570, 576 (1948). That
general principle has been given statutory approval in Code
§ 1-16. Brushy Ridge Coal Co. v. Blevins, 6 Va. App. 73, 79,
367 S.E.2d 204, 207 (1988). Here, the legislature specifically
made the amendment adding "aliens" to the definition of
"employee" in Code § 65.2-101 effective April 19, 2000. We find
nothing in the amended statute to indicate that the legislature
intended that the amendment be applied retroactively. Hence, we
will not do so.
Accordingly, we find no error, and the decision of the
commission is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 5 -