466 S.W.3d 585
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Trimmer worked almost 30 years for Johnson Controls in heavy manual battery stacking, lifting up to 85-pound batteries and processing about 4,000 per day (minimum 850 every two hours).
- On September 9, 2003, Trimmer reported shoulder pain while stacking batteries and heard a popping; he initially declined clinic evaluation.
- Medical records show initial evaluation suggesting a degenerative left shoulder condition with no clear work-related injury, then later evidence suggesting a work-related fall or incident.
- Trimmer filed a May 2004 workers’ compensation claim alleging an injury arising out of and in the course of employment on September 9, 2003, later amended to claim an accident (fall).
- An August 10, 2005 ALJ hearing denied the claim, concluding Trimmer failed to prove an injury by accident or occupational disease arising from his employment; Commission affirmed.
- In 2005 Trimmer filed a second claim alleging an occupational disease from repetitive work; a later temporary award and final award awarded benefits, but Johnson Controls argued the claim was barred by res judicata and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second claim is barred by res judicata | Trimmer argues the two claims are different theories (accident vs. occupational disease) and thus not barred | Johnson Controls contends the second claim arises from the same facts and should have been litigated in the first suit | Yes; the second claim is barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. banc 2002) (claim preclusion bars subsequent suit on the same operative facts against the same party)
- Kesterson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. banc 2008) (four identities and final judgment on the merits required for res judicata)
- Kinsky v. 154 Land Co., LLC, 371 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. App. 2012) (same party, same transaction, same evidence precludes second action)
- King Gen'l Contr., Inc. v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 821 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (definition of 'transaction' and factors for single cause of action)
- Holaus v. William J. Zickell Co., 958 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. App. 1997) (relation-back and separate/distinct claim discussion (distinguished here))