tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post8276150322742363587..comments2023-11-13T11:54:56.769-08:00Comments on DePaolo's World: Immigration Status and Home Care ReimbursementAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02446191842560064784noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post-49810085234922981012012-05-21T09:49:51.269-07:002012-05-21T09:49:51.269-07:00Good observations and comments Bill. I don't k...Good observations and comments Bill. I don't know what the deal was going forward after the award - it is possible that the carrier decided that hiring professional services is cheaper, after this lesson, so they went out and procured the necessary care rather than pay the spouse (which would make sense for the family too because then the spouse could return to more productive remunerative work presumably). At least with respect to CA law, the Rule of Law was followed. It is of much more vague interpretation as to whether Federal or International law was violated however.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02446191842560064784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8489363879633129568.post-26362364845209337302012-05-19T08:16:05.675-07:002012-05-19T08:16:05.675-07:00David,
We’re a ‘Nation of Laws’. We’re nothing; w...David,<br /><br />We’re a ‘Nation of Laws’. We’re nothing; we have nothing, if we don’t stick to the Rule of Law. I’m assuming that Ms. Mota’s illegal status was established and is not in dispute. That being the case, the rule is she cannot work in the United States.<br /><br />Moreover, this is a Federal law. Regardless of how the state law rules, it cannot overturn, or supersede Federal law. The letter of the law should never be bent in order to achieve ‘fairness, reasonableness, or justice’. Those words are too vague and different people have different interpretations of the same word. Once we go down that road, we’re on the slippery slope of anarchy. <br /><br />That having been said, I would split this right down the middle. I would pay the lien for services rendered. After all, she did provide the services. The carrier would have been responsible to pay someone. The rate that was awarded was the standard rate. So, the carrier is not damaged in any way. In fact, by taking advantage of the ‘letter of the law’, the carrier would have been unjustly enriched had Ms. Mota not been paid.<br /><br />But, I would also rule that, due to her illegal status, no future work will be compensated. They can get a legal worker to perform the services here. Or, they could move back to Mexico and she could legally resume caring for her husband and getting paid.<br /><br />The logic that she ‘would have been legally working’ if she had been in Mexico, so she’s entitled to the money for services rendered in the US (where she is not a legal resident), is seriously flawed.<br /><br />We live in a world of International, National, and local government laws. Each entity is entitled to pass laws and enforce their laws. If there are conflicts between two governmental bodies, they need to be resolved. But in this case, there is no conflict.billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16030231757371541081noreply@blogger.com