A Tennessee ruling says immigration status doesn't erase employers' workers' comp obligations
A Tennessee workers' compensation court has ordered an employer to provide medical benefits to an injured worker – even after his deportation to Mexico.
The April 8, 2026 decision out of the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims in Memphis pits a straightforward question against an uncommon set of facts: does an employer's duty to provide medical treatment survive when the injured worker is no longer in the country?
According to the court, the answer is yes.
The case involves Yonny Perez Hernandez, who was injured on July 17, 2023, while helping carry a large post with four other people at PR Marine Constr., LLC. The post fell on him, and he was airlifted by helicopter to a hospital, where he underwent back surgery requiring hardware insertion and had his jaw wired shut. PR Marine accepted the claim from the beginning, and Hernandez attended four follow-up appointments after being released.
That is where the straightforward part of the story ends.
Hernandez testified that he asked PR Marine for additional treatment after those appointments but never received it. He also said he was never provided with a panel of physicians – a requirement under Tennessee law when an injured worker expresses a need for medical care. About six months after the injury, he moved to Texas. On September 3, 2024, he was deported to Mexico for being in the United States without legal status.
PR Marine argued that it had reached an agreement with Hernandez's attorney for him to see a doctor shortly before his deportation, but neither party submitted evidence of such an agreement.
The checks Hernandez had been receiving from PR Marine stopped after the deportation. He reported ongoing symptoms, including difficulty lifting more than 15 kilograms, pain when sitting or standing for extended periods, and the feeling of hardware in his back when lying on a hard surface.
PR Marine pushed back on two fronts. The employer argued that Hernandez had not submitted any medical evidence linking his current symptoms to the original workplace injury. It also argued that his immigration status and current residence in Mexico should disqualify him from receiving benefits, drawing a comparison to case law and legal commentary suggesting that incarcerated individuals may not be entitled to workers' compensation.
Judge Shaterra R. Marion was not persuaded by either argument.
On the medical evidence question, the court found that the severity of the injury spoke for itself. Given that Hernandez was helicopter-evacuated, had his jaw wired shut, and underwent back surgery with hardware – and that PR Marine had accepted the claim from the start – the court held that the injury was obvious enough that no expert medical opinion was needed to establish a connection between the work incident and the ongoing symptoms.
On the immigration and residency question, the court turned to the text of the Tennessee workers' compensation statute. The law defines an employee to include every person, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed. The statute also requires employers to offer a new panel of physicians when an injured worker changes their community of residence and requests one. The court found nothing in the statute that would deny medical benefits on the basis of legal status or where a claimant happens to live.
The court also dismissed PR Marine's contention that arranging medical care in Mexico would be too difficult. The employer had offered no evidence that it had actually tried to locate a physician there. Hypothetical logistical challenges, the court noted, do not relieve an employer of the obligation to furnish treatment.
The ruling orders PR Marine to provide Hernandez with medical treatment made reasonably necessary by his July 2023 injury under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. Stonetrust Com. Ins. Co. is named in the case as the workers' compensation carrier. A status conference has been set for June 26, 2026.
It is worth noting that this is an expedited hearing order, not a final decision. The court found that Hernandez is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits, but the case has not yet reached a final resolution. The order is subject to interlocutory appeal within seven business days of entry.
For carriers and employers, the practical takeaway is clear enough: the duty to provide workers' compensation medical benefits does not stop at the border, and the difficulty of administering a claim abroad is not, on its own, a defense.
The case is Yonny Perez Hernandez v. PR Marine Constr., LLC, and Stonetrust Com. Ins. Co., Docket No. 2025-80-3406 (Tenn. Ct. Workers' Comp. Claims, filed Apr. 8, 2026).
