Commission's vague order precludes application of collateral estoppel
Jacobs v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, No. S-08-0255 (Wyo. 09/25/09).
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings that determined the worker's claim was barred by collateral estoppel.
What it means:
The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the re-litigation of previously litigated issues. Where a specific finding was never issued relating to the past, present or future compensability of a particular claim for benefits, the claim cannot be barred by collateral estoppel.
A worker injured his toe in a work-related accident. He received workers' compensation benefits for a number of conditions related to the accident, including treatment for chronic abdominal pain. A hearing was held before the Wyoming Medical Commission in which claims for the worker's lung condition and knee conditions were directly addressed and denied. The chronic abdominal pain was also discussed, but the commission did not make a specific finding on its compensability.
While the commission's decision was on appeal, the worker filed a new claim for his abdominal pain condition. The Office of Administrative Hearings denied the claim, ruling it was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court reversed, observing that the characterization of what benefits were actually denied in the original order was "quite vague." It noted that a court cannot reverse or affirm a denial of benefits that has not occurred. It determined there was not a clear judgment issued on the merits. Thus, the chronic abdominal pain claim was not barred by collateral estoppel.
The Supreme Court explained that four factors are considered when determining whether collateral estoppel applies: 1) whether the issue previously decided was identical; 2) whether there was a judgment on the merits; 3) whether the parties were the same; and 4) whether the worker had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. It reasoned that the first and fourth elements were satisfied but that there was no prior judgment issued on the merits. It pointed out that the issue was discussed with regards to the lung and knee problems. However, there was no specific finding addressing past, present, or future compensability of any claim for benefits related to the chronic abdominal pain. Therefore, the abdominal pain issue could not be barred by collateral estoppel.
Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.
November 16, 2009
Copyright 2009© LRP Publications