Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Tarango v. State Industrial Insurance System
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided June 13, 2001No. 34462Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMaupin, C. J.
Angel Tarango is an undocumented alien worker who was severely injured in the course and scope of his employment with a Las Vegas dry wall contractor. After collecting wage, medical, and disability benefits, he submitted a claim for vocational rehabilitation to the SÜS.1 An administrative appeals officer upheld denial of the claim on the ground that providing rehabilitation services to Mr. Tarango would violate the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) of 1986. The district court denied Mr. Tarango’s petition for judicial review of that decision.
I would remand this matter for a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- De Canas v. BicaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.