Judgments: Res Judicata

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.
Fuss v. Ins. Co. of NA and Valor [4/8/04] 2004 MTWCC 34 Where the Department of Labor and Industry has determined that the claimant suffers from an occupational disease and the insurer fails to appeal that determination within the time allowed by statute, the determination is final and cannot be contested in a later proceeding.
Fuss v. Ins. Co. of NA and Valor [4/8/04] 2004 MTWCC 34 Where the Department of Labor and Industry has determined that the claimant suffers from an occupational disease and the insurer fails to appeal that determination within the time allowed by statute, the determination is final and may not be challenged on the ground that it was based on a mistake of fact.
Applegate v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [6/2703] 2003 MTWCC 46 Where claimant asserted in a previous action that her wage rate for benefit purposes should be based on a dollar an hour raise she claimed the employer should have paid her, and that claim was rejected in a final decision of the Court. Her claim respecting the dollar an hour raise is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Thompson v. Liberty NW Ins. [5/29/03] 2003 MTWCC 37 A party may not relitigate a matter which has been specifically decided in a prior action.
Thompson v. Liberty NW Ins. [5/29/03] 2003 MTWCC 37 The "opportunity to litigate" rule of res judicata in the context of workers' compensation litigation applies only to issues which are related to the actual issues raised and litigated in a prior proceeding.
Geery v. Travelers [2/13/03] 2003 MTWCC 8 Where claimant authorized his attorney to enter into a settlement agreement settling his claim for compensation benefits, and his attorney thereafter executed a stipulation containing the terms of the agreement and authorizing the Workers' Compensation Court to enter judgment in accordance with the agreement, there is no basis for attacking the judgment and the judgment bars any further compensation benefits.
Applegate v. Liberty Northwest Ins. [10/9/02] 2002 MTWCC 45 Prior litigation seeking a determination that claimant suffered a wage loss and is therefore entitled to rehabilitation benefits does not bar a subsequent petition seeking auxiliary benefits to pay for travel which is necessary to implement a rehabilitation plan since the issue of auxiliary benefits was not raised or litigated in the prior proceeding and was not inextricably connected to the issues actually litigated in the prior proceeding.
Cheetham v. Liberty NW [12/18/01] 2001 MTWCC 65 Where the only issue litigated in a prior proceeding was liability of the insurer, res judicata bars relitigation of the issue, however, under present rules and practice of the Workers' Compensation Court, it does not bar claimant from bringing a subsequent action seeking benefits for domiciliary care even though that care was rendered prior to and during the proceeding.
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.

M. Miller v. State Fund [11/17/00] 2000 MTWCC 72 Claims and theories a party actually litigated in prior action are barred by the judgment in the prior action.

M. Miller v. State Fund [11/17/00] 2000 MTWCC 72 Claims and theories a party had an opportunity to litigate in a prior action are barred by the judgment in the prior action

M. Miller v. State Fund [11/17/00] 2000 MTWCC 72 Claims and theories that a party did not have an opportunity to litigate in a prior action because of advice or actions of Court personnel which are not of record are not barred by the judgment in the prior action.