Judgments: Collateral Estoppel

Stewart v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [06/04/10] 2010 MTWCC 14 In Lund v. State Compensation Mut. Ins. Fund, the Montana Supreme Court held that a subsequent action in a workers' compensation claim which seeks a different type of benefit based on different statutory criteria than the benefit sought in the first action does not satisfy the identical issue element of collateral estoppel. In the present case, the claimant's first action sought an increased impairment rating under § 39-71-711, MCA, while the present action seeks payment for certain medical benefits. The statutory criteria for medical benefits are set forth at § 39-71-704, MCA. Because the current action seeks a different type of benefit based on different statutory criteria than the benefit sought in the first action, the identical issue element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied.

Stewart v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [06/04/10] 2010 MTWCC 14 Although the parties used the terms res judicata, collateral estoppel, and issue preclusion interchangeably, these terms are not interchangeable, but represent different doctrines with distinct elements. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the relitigation of a claim that the party has already had the opportunity to litigate. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the reopening of an issue that has been litigated and determined in a prior suit. Since the moving party discussed only the elements of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) in its brief, the Court considered the motion to be grounded in collateral estoppel.

Hodge v. State Fund [1/17/01] 2001 MTWCC 1 The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an insurer, even a governmentally sponsored one such as the State Fund, from pursuing an affirmative defense of fraud in claimant's action for benefits even though claimant was acquitted of fraud in a criminal action since the burden of proof in the criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) was significantly higher than in a claim for benefits (preponderance.) Restatement of Law Second, Judgments, secs. 27, 28, 85.