Boyd, I. v. Accurate Trash Removal
Boyd, I. v. Accurate Trash Removal No. 571 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- On July 31, 2012 an Accurate trash truck driven by William Corbitt struck SEPTA bus driver Isiah Boyd head-on; Boyd suffered head, neck, and lower-back injuries and later claimed post-concussion syndrome.
- Boyd filed a workers’ compensation claim against SEPTA; the WCJ found Boyd was injured and temporarily totally disabled but had "recovered" as of October 25, 2012 and awarded benefits only for the disability period.
- In July 2014 Boyd and his wife Alisha sued Accurate and Corbitt for damages (Isiah for personal injuries; Alisha for loss of consortium). Accurate conceded liability at trial.
- Accurate sought to preclude evidence of post-October 25, 2012 injuries/damages and requested a collateral-estoppel jury instruction based on the WCJ’s recovery finding; the trial court denied the motions and allowed evidence of continuing post-concussion symptoms.
- A jury awarded $700,000 to Isiah and $50,000 to Alisha; the trial court granted delay damages to both Plaintiffs; Accurate appealed asserting collateral estoppel error and challenging the delay award to Alisha.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court on collateral-estoppel issues, reversed the delay award to Alisha (rule 238 does not permit delay damages for loss of consortium), and remanded to adjust the award.
Issues
| Issue | Boyd's Argument | Accurate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ’s finding of recovery (no disability after Oct. 25, 2012) collaterally estops Boyd from seeking non-economic damages for ongoing injuries in tort | WCJ’s disability determination does not preclude tort recovery for non-economic harms; WCJ found Boyd was injured | WCJ’s recovery finding bars litigation of post-Oct. 25, 2012 injuries/damages under collateral estoppel | Held for Boyd: collateral estoppel did not apply because WCJ decided disability (not absence of injury); WCJ had found injury, so the first prong failed |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion in limine to exclude post-Oct. 25, 2012 evidence based on collateral estoppel | Evidence admissible; different remedies and issues in WC proceeding vs. tort case | Evidence should be excluded as relitigation of issues decided by WCJ | Held for Boyd: WC disability findings are distinct from tort injury/recovery issues; non-economic damages not barred |
| Whether a collateral-estoppel jury instruction limiting damages to pre-Oct. 25, 2012 period was required | No—would be incorrect and confusing given WCJ’s finding of injury | Yes—the jury should be instructed to limit damages consistent with WCJ ruling | Held for Boyd: instruction denied; court properly refused to limit jury by WC disability finding |
| Whether delay damages under Pa.R.C.P. 238 are recoverable for loss of consortium claims | Delay damages available only for bodily injury, death, or property damage; consortium not eligible | Argued delay damages awarded to Alisha should stand | Held for Accurate re: delay damages to Alisha: reversed—delay damages are not recoverable for loss of consortium; remand to modify award |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiesewetter, 889 A.2d 47 (Pa. 2005) (elements and purposes of collateral estoppel)
- Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1995) (collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation of identical issues)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 559 A.2d 896 (Pa. 1989) (five-prong test for collateral estoppel)
- Nelson v. Heslin, 806 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (distinguishing workers’ compensation disability findings from injury determinations in tort actions)
- Anchorstar v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 620 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 1993) (Pa.R.C.P. 238 delay damages not available for loss of consortium)