Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation
59 Va. App. 39
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brock was injured at work in January 2007 and filed a July 2007 workers’ compensation claim for shoulder, back, and hip injuries, later amended in November 2007 to include head and leg injuries.
- A deputy commissioner scheduled a hearing and warned that all issues would be considered; a continuance was requested and granted, delaying the March 2008 hearing.
- At the first evidentiary hearing, Brock and counsel limited proof to the stipulation of a left shoulder injury and produced no evidence for other injuries.
- The deputy awarded benefits for the left shoulder injury, then dismissed the claim from the docket; neither party appealed the order to the full commission.
- Four months later (July 2008), Brock’s counsel sought additional benefits for hip, back, and leg injuries arising from the same accident; the employer argued those injuries had been abandoned at the first hearing.
- The full commission ultimately held that res judicata barred Brock’s claims for back, hips, and legs and that the first award’s finality precluded relitigation of those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred the later claims. | Brock argues no final adjudication on the merits; res judicata does not apply. | Voith Siemens argues the first award was final and that the later claims could have been litigated but were not. | Affirmative for the defense; res judicata barred the later claims. |
| Whether the 2008 award was a final adjudication on the abandoned issues. | Brock contends the 2008 award did not address the abandoned injuries and thus was not final. | Voith Siemens contends the first award was final and the abandoned issues could be precluded. | Affirmative; the 2008 award and prior proceedings constituted a final adjudication. |
| Whether the deputy commissioner properly treated abandonment as preclusion. | Brock argues abandonment did not equal preclusion. | Voith Siemens contends abandonment triggers res judicata under merger principles. | Affirmative; abandonment effectively precluded those claims. |
| Whether can apply res judicata to 'could have been litigated' claims in the workers’ compensation context. | Brock asserts that only actually litigated issues should be barred. | Voith Siemens asserts that the 'could have been litigated' principle applies. | Affirmative; res judicata applies to claims that could have been litigated. |
Key Cases Cited
- K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va.App. 213, 337 S.E.2d 299 (1985) (merger principle; precludes matters that could have been litigated)
- Rusty's Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va.App. 119, 510 S.E.2d 255 (1999) (res judicata applies to deputy and full commission decisions)
- Thurber, 1 Va.App. 219, 337 S.E.2d 302 (1985) (final award bars relitigation of same cause of action)
- Smith v. Holland, 124 Va. 663, 98 S.E. 676 (1919) (final decree bars other claims that could have been raised)
- Miller v. Smith, 109 Va. 651, 64 S.E. 956 (1909) (every grievance that might have been raised; final decree extends to related claims)
- Lofton Ridge, LLC v. Norfolk S. Ry., 268 Va. 377, 601 S.E.2d 648 (2004) (claims precluded by res judicata include those within pleadings or closely related)
- Va. Imps. Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 650 S.E.2d 554 (2007) (restates broader scope of claim preclusion under Rule 1:6(a))