Debra Levy v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
68 Va. App. 575
| Va. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Claimant Debra Levy slipped at Wegmans on June 26, 2011, injuring a right knee with preexisting arthritis; she had a partial medial meniscectomy and later sought additional arthroscopic surgery and disability benefits.
- Levy filed the relevant claim on April 29, 2015, seeking approval for proposed surgery and protective disability from January 29, 2015.
- On September 21, 2015 the full Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission found no medical evidence linking the compensable injury to her ongoing disability or the need for the proposed surgery.
- Levy later deposed her treating physician (Dr. Stanton), who opined the 2011 meniscectomy accelerated degenerative arthritis and that the proposed surgery was causally related to the workplace injury.
- Levy then filed new/added claims (Dec 30, 2015) asserting aggravation/acceleration of preexisting arthritis and 27% partial right-leg disability; a deputy commissioner and then the full Commission held these claims barred by res judicata (both issue and claim preclusion).
- Levy appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia arguing the Commission misapplied res judicata (confusing claim vs. issue preclusion) and that the error violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; the Court affirmed the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred Levy’s successive surgery and aggravation claims | Levy: the surgery/aggravation claim was "new" because causation evidence (Dr. Stanton deposition) was not available earlier | Wegmans: prior Commission decision addressed causation and Levy could have presented evidence earlier; claims are barred by res judicata | Res judicata bars the claims—both issue preclusion (evidence of need for surgery was previously considered) and claim preclusion (could-have-litigated rule) apply |
| Whether the Commission improperly applied issue preclusion when it should have applied claim preclusion | Levy: Commission relied on issue preclusion in a situation requiring claim-preclusion analysis | Wegmans: Commission properly applied both doctrines; medical evidence had been considered and the new theory was incident to the prior litigation | Court: Commission properly addressed both doctrines; no reversible error |
| Whether claimant’s failure to depose doctor earlier (cost) excuses claim-preclusion | Levy: inability/expense prevented earlier discovery; deposition produced ‘‘new’’ evidence | Wegmans: strategic choice not to develop evidence does not excuse res judicata; parties must present available proof at first opportunity | Court: claimant’s choice to delay evidence-gathering does not overcome res judicata; claim barred |
| Whether application of res judicata violated Levy’s due process rights | Levy: Commission’s confusion deprived her of a fair adjudication under the Fourteenth Amendment | Wegmans: prior litigation provided the required process; res judicata is a standard finality doctrine | Court: No due process violation; claimant had prior opportunity and res judicata is constitutionally permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoten v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 262 (discussion of standard of review for res judicata)
- Pruden v. Plasser Am. Corp., 45 Va. App. 566 (res judicata applies to deputy commissioners and full commission)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (distinguishing claim preclusion and issue preclusion)
- Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation, 59 Va. App. 39 (could-have-litigated/should-have-litigated principle in workers’ comp claims)
- Lofton Ridge, LLC v. Norfolk S. Ry., 268 Va. 377 (claim preclusion scope)
- AMP, Inc. v. Ruebush, 10 Va. App. 270 (no rehearing on causation after final denial)
- Fodi’s v. Rutherford, 26 Va. App. 446 (res judicata bars re-presentation of previously denied claim via new evidence)
- Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (finality of judgments and societal costs of fragmented litigation)