Disability Law

Petition Not Barred by Res Judicata Where Based On Newly Discovered Evidence

By David A. McCranie, Esq.

As I discussed here, "res judicata" is an equitable doctrine that bars the re-litigation of claims and issues that have already been litigated.  But the doctrine also bars claims and issues that could have been but were not litigated at an earlier proceeding.  That's what was at issue in Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs, decided on 8/15/2008.

Ms. Thomas went to a hearing before the JCC in March 2005 with respect to several issues, including the compensability of a lumbar problem allegedly stemming from her otherwise compensable on-the-job accident.  Although she had undergone a lumbar MRI scan prior to that hearing, she had never been told the results of the exam.  In fact, she had been told by her personal physicians that there was "nothing wrong" with her back.  Having no evidence of her true diagnosis or its causal connection to the accident, she therefore dismissed her lumbar claims prior to the hearing.   

In fact, however, the scan showed several abnormalities, and when she learned of the results two years later in 2007, she filed a new petition for benefits. The E/C defended the new petition in part on the grounds of "res judicata" and filed a Motion for Summary Final Order in that regard which the JCC granted. The First DCA reversed the summary final order, however, holding that the res judicata defense does not bar a petition where it is based on newly discovered evidence.

Besides the ruling on res judicata, the opinion is noteworthy because it sets forth for the first time the standard of review applicable to review of a JCC's summary final order entered pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.120. Because the rule is substantially equivalent to a summary judgment in a civil case, the court elected to use the standard applicable to reviewing such judgments, i.e., de novo. Under that standard, the appellate court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. If the evidence is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the trier of fact and should not be decided by way of a summary final order.

Full post as published by Florida Workers’ Compensation Law Blog on September 09, 2008 (boomark / email).