The case of injury at the workplace - Essay Example

? Charles E Plaintiff (Plaintiff-appellee) V Paul D. Williams and Administrator, OHIO BWC (Defendant-Appellant) Case Number 13APE-02-155 Before the Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District Franklin County, Ohio Name of Student Class, Subject Name of Professor Dec 1, 2013 Charles E Plaintiff (Plaintiff-appellee) V Paul D. Williams and Administrator, OHIO BWC (Defendant-Appellant) Case Number 13APE-02-155 Before the Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District Franklin County, Ohio Background The case is an appeal of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County delivered on 29th January 2013. At the trial stage, the appellant in this case (the defendant then) filed a motion to dismiss the appellee’s case (then the plaintiff) or in alternative a motion for summary judgment which was subsequently dismissed by the trial court for the reasons detailed hereunder. The brief facts of the case are that Daniel (hereby called the plaintiff), while in the course of employment was seriously injured when he was hit by brass knuckles on the throat. Subsequently, on 12th august 2008, an application for worker’s benefits arising from the injury was made before Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) on his behalf. BWC rejected the application and communicated its decision to the Plaintiff, clearly stating that should he disagree with the decision, he had right to appeal the decision within 14 days. The plaintiff did not file the appeal until after the deadline had lapsed. On appeal, the district hearing officer for BWC held that the appeal could not be heard since it had been launched outside the time stated. Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed the decision of the District Hearing officer to the next level that is the Staff hearing Officer, who also found that since the plaintiff received the letter but did not appeal on time, he had no relief. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the court. BWC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court ruled in favor of BWC holding that Plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved to the Tenth District Court of Appeals which upheld the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff did not stop there but made a second Workers’ Compensation claim application with BWC. This second application was administratively rejected by BWC and Industrial Commission at all levels. The plaintiff then appealed BWC’s decision to the court. At that point, the BWC (hereby called the defendant) made the motion to dismiss or in alternative for summary judgment (the subject to the present appeal) on grounds that decision of the defendant denying the applicant’s first application acted as a bar for his making the second application, under the doctrine of res Judicata. Therefore, the main issue in the application was whether the second worker’s compensation application by the plaintiff can be heard de novo by BWC or it was barred under the doctrine of res Judicata. The court found that the second application should have been heard de novo by the defendant. The reasoning of the court was that the original worker’s compensation claim was not heard on merit but was dismissed on procedural technicalities and, therefore, the doctrine of res Judicata did not apply. The court relied on a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Greene v Conrad (10th Dist., 1997) where the court held that BWC had denied the application on procedural ground, and which did not constitute adjudication of the dispute on its merits and, therefore, the doctrine of res Judicata could not apply. Therefore, the court dismissed the defendant’s motion to dismiss and remanded back the matter to BWC for proceedings. The trial court found that the original worker’s compensation claim application was filed by another person other than the plaintiff with BWC without the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, the claim cannot be held to have been adjudicated on merit since he was not pricy as a party. Present Appeal Appellants Assignment of Error The appellant has raised 3 assignments of error. They include: 1. First Assignment of Error The Trial Court erred in finding that the 14 day deadline for appeal from the adverse decision or order of the administrator did not apply to a claim for Workers’ compensation benefits filed by a person other than the injured worker/claimant. 2. Second Assignment of Error The Trial Court erred by failing to find that the doctrines of res Judicata and collateral estoppel bar or preclude a second claim, application or court case for workers’ compensation benefits based on the same injury where it had already determined that the claimant had failed to timely appeal under R.C 4123.511 and the trial court lacked jurisdiction under R.C 4123.512. 3. Third Assignment of Error The Trial Court erred when, after it had denied the administrator’s motion to dismiss or in alternative summary judgment, it remanded the case back to the Industrial Commission for a hearing on the merits f the claimant’s entitlement to worker’s compensation benefits. Issues for determination The appellant has presented the following issues for determination: a) Is a claim for worker’s compensation benefits filed by a third party on behalf of the injured worker, that is denied by the administrator, BWC, subject to the 14 days deadline under R.C 4123.511 b) Is the claimant barred by the doctrines of Res Judicata and collateral estoppel from filing an appeal to common pleas court under R.C 4123.512 where he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies from an adverse Industrial Commission decision in an earlier common pleas court case? c) When the trial court overrules a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and further finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a relief under Greene v Conrad, is the trial court entitled to remand the matter for a hearing on merit? Predicted outcome The Tenth Appellate District shall dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the decision of the Trial Court. The reasons for my conclusion are that the original order of dismissal dated 28th August 2008 does not have res Judicata effect on the second application. This is because the original application was not determined on its merit. It is clear that the appellee was not afforded a free and fair opportunity to litigate the original application since he was not given reasonable notice and secondly, because he was not party to the application which was made, undisputedly, by an unknown party and not Daniel. With regards to the first assignment of error, it is clear that the appellant misunderstood trial court decision. The trial court did not decide on the 14th day rule. The court did not state that the 14 day rule did not apply to the first application but rather that the first BWC decision did not act as res Judicata for the second decision. The issue of whether a BWC decision based on procedural technicalities acts as res Judicata for second application was determined in Greene v Conrad that it did not because it did not amount to adjudication on merits. With regard to the second assignment of error, it has been well settled in Monaghan v. Eagle Picher Industries (1984), 21 Ohio APP. 3d 179 that a party must plead and prove the following elements: (1) that the party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action. (2) That there was a final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. (3) The issue must have been admitted or actually tried and decided and must be necessary to the final judgment and (4) the issue must have been identical to the issue involved in the prior suit. In addition, in Greene v Conrad it was held that a decision of BWC would not act as res Judicata unless the party to whom the doctrine is to be asserted had a full and fair opportunity to defend the issue before the BWC. It was held in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306 that ‘full and fair’ opportunity requires due process. One of the key ingredients of due process is notice, which was clearly denied to Daniel in the former application (Dervort, 1999, p.37). With regards to the third assignment of error, having found out that BWC erred in its refusal to hear the merits of the second application, the only reasonable option is to remand the matter to BWC to hear the merits of the case. This is in order for Daniel to exhaust administrative channels, and have a channel to appeal if he was dissatisfied. In conclusion, the appeal court shall reject all the assignment of error and uphold the decision of the Trial Reference Case Law Greene v Conrad (10th Dist., 1997) Monaghan v. Eagle Picher Industries (1984), 21 Ohio APP. 3d 179 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306 Books Dervort, T.R. (1999). American Law and the Legal System: Equal Justice under the Law. New York: Cengage Learning. Print Read More