Does my immigration status affect an injury or wrongful death claim?

In a civil action for personal injury or wrongful death, evidence of a person’s immigration status is not admitted. Discovery into a person’s immigration status is not permitted either. Discovery is the exchange of information between the two sides before trial. The statute says “a person”, so it is not limited to the person who brings the lawsuit. The section is about evidence and discovery. It contains no sentence on how damages are measured. This site has no verified published court decision that applies the section.

The same section says it does not affect the standards of relevance, admissibility or discovery in four other California statutes. Those four statutes are written for labor, employment, civil rights, consumer protection and housing laws.

In 2010 the Texas Supreme Court decided a wrongful death case that arose from a collision. The trial court had let the jury hear that the truck driver being sued had entered the country unlawfully and had been deported. The Supreme Court held that admitting that evidence was harmful error and ordered a new trial. The status at issue was that of a driver who was a defendant, not of an injured person. The decision applies the general rules of evidence to the facts of that case. It does not announce a rule that immigration status is never admissible. It does not decide whether status may be shown on a claim for lost future earnings.

The Texas Rules of Evidence have a general rule that does not mention immigration status. A court may exclude relevant evidence if its value as proof is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, among other dangers.

In 2011 the First Court of Appeals in Houston, an intermediate court of appeals, reviewed a wrongful death case. The defendants wanted the jury to hear that the worker who died was in the country unlawfully, to reduce the claim for future lost earnings. The trial court kept that evidence out, and the court of appeals affirmed. It said the evidence had some relevance to future lost income. It also said the value of the evidence was slight and speculative without a showing that the worker would likely have been deported during his working life, and that its prejudicial effect was great. It held that keeping the evidence out was within the trial court’s discretion in that case. It said these rulings vary from case to case.

In civil cases, evidence of a party’s or a witness’s immigration status is not admissible unless immigration status is an essential fact to prove an element of a party’s cause of action. This site has no verified published decision that applies this part of the rule in a civil case.

The rule has two exceptions, and both are handled after trial, by motion. In them, evidence of immigration status may be submitted to the court. One is where a party who is subject to a final order of removal in immigration proceedings was awarded damages for future lost earnings. The other is where a party was awarded reinstatement to employment. So in the first situation, status can still matter after a verdict.

Whenever a party seeks to use or introduce immigration status evidence, the court must review that evidence in private (in camera).

The immigration status of a minor child seeking recovery under any applicable law is irrelevant to the issues of liability or remedy. The section has one exception, for employment related court orders about future conduct that would directly violate federal law.

In 2003 the court of appeals in Tyler decided the case of an injured worker who was not a United States citizen and was not authorized to work. The court said Texas law does not require citizenship or an immigration work permit as a condition of recovering damages for lost earning capacity. This is an intermediate court of appeals, not the Texas Supreme Court.

In 2012 the court of appeals in Dallas reviewed the case of three brothers hurt in a collision with a tractor trailer. They had been awarded lost wages and lost earning capacity. For the appeal, the parties agreed that the brothers were in the United States unlawfully. The court concluded that a federal immigration law, known as IRCA, does not preempt Texas tort law in the context of that case, meaning it does not override it. The court affirmed. The defendant had no employment tie to the brothers. The same court recognized that courts are not uniform on this issue. This is an intermediate court of appeals.

In 2010, before Evidence Rule 413 was adopted, the Washington Supreme Court decided the case of a worker who was hurt in a fall from a ladder and sought lost future income. The trial court had admitted evidence that he was undocumented. The Supreme Court held that status is relevant to lost future earnings. It also held that the value as proof of undocumented status, by itself, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and it reversed. The court said the question whether immigration status bars recovery of lost future income was not before it.

California’s wrongful death statute lists who may assert the claim by their relationship to the person who died: the surviving spouse, the domestic partner, the children and the descendants of children who have died, then the people who would inherit under the law when there is no will, and certain dependents. The personal representative of the person who died may assert it on their behalf. The section does not contain the words immigration, citizen or alien.

A claim that survives a person’s death may be brought by the personal representative of the estate or, if there is none, by the person’s successor in interest. This section does not contain the words immigration, citizen or alien either.

A wrongful death action is for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children and parents of the person who died, and they may bring it. If none of them has begun the action within three calendar months after the death, the executor or administrator must bring it unless all of them ask that it not be brought. The section contains no reference to immigration status or citizenship.

A personal injury action survives the death of the injured person, in favor of that person’s heirs, legal representatives and estate. The section contains no reference to immigration status or citizenship.

Two other sections of the same chapter do mention citizenship or legal residence. Both concern where a case may be heard. One applies when the act that caused the death or injury took place outside Texas, and it sets a treaty condition for a citizen of a foreign country. The other covers when a court may stay or dismiss a case so that it is heard somewhere else, and it uses the words “legal resident of this state”. Neither section names immigration status. This site did not research how Texas courts read these two sections.

The personal representative brings a wrongful death action for the benefit of the spouse, state registered domestic partner and children, including stepchildren, of the person who died. If there is none of those, the action may be maintained for the benefit of the parents or siblings. The current sections contain no reference to immigration status, citizenship or residence.

Before July 28, 2019, parents and siblings qualified only if they depended on the person who died for support and lived in the United States at the time of the death. A 2019 law removed both conditions, and it also applies to claims that were not yet time barred. The old condition was residence in the United States. It was not an immigration status test.

A person may not be subjected to civil arrest in a courthouse while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse. The section does not apply to arrests made under a valid judicial warrant. The text covers the courthouse, not travel to and from it, and it does not mention immigration.

Parties and attorneys must leave Social Security numbers out of papers filed in the court’s public file, or redact them. If a number is required, only the last four digits may be used. The rule protects privacy. It does not say whether any filing requires a number.

In a civil action filed in a district court, a county court or one of the other courts the section names, each party’s first pleading must include two things. One is the last three numbers of the party’s driver’s license number, if the party has been issued a license. The other is the last three numbers of the party’s Social Security number, if the party has been issued one. A court may order a pleading amended to add that information and may hold a party in contempt for not amending as ordered. This site has not verified how a court treats a first pleading from a party who has no number.

A court rule treats full Social Security numbers and similar government identification numbers as sensitive data. With some exceptions, a document that contains sensitive data may not be filed with a court unless the data is redacted. One exception is where a statute, court rule or administrative regulation specifically requires the data.

No person is subject to civil arrest while going to, remaining at, or returning from a court facility, which includes the area within one mile of it. There are three exceptions. The first is where the arrest is made under a court order authorizing it. The second is when the arrest is necessary to secure the immediate safety of judges, court staff or the public. The third is where circumstances otherwise permit a warrantless arrest under RCW 10.31.100.

Judges, court staff, court security, prosecutors and their staff may not ask about or collect information on a person’s immigration or citizenship status or place of birth. The exception is where that information is connected to an investigation of a state or local crime. A judge may still make the inquiries needed to decide matters within the judge’s jurisdiction. The same people may not give nonpublic personal information to federal immigration authorities for civil immigration enforcement. They also may not tell those authorities that a person is at court. Both limits have an exception, where federal law or a court order requires it. The act does not limit sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities a person’s citizenship or immigration status in accordance with a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373.

A Washington Supreme Court rule covers a person who is inside a court of the state for a judicial proceeding or other business with the court, or who is traveling to or from the court. That person may not be subjected to civil arrest without a judicial arrest warrant or a judicial order for arrest.

Parties must not include Social Security numbers in documents filed with the court, and must redact them if present, unless necessary or otherwise ordered. If a person’s number must be included in a document, only the last four digits are used.