Robert C. Carson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division
322 P.3d 1261
Wyo.2014Background
- On Jan 19, 2006 Robert Carson was in a car crash; he was seriously injured and his passenger, Hugh Sharp, died.
- Carson sought Wyoming workers’ compensation benefits claiming the trip to Jackson was in the course of employment with Metrocities; the Division denied benefits and the OAH upheld that denial in 2007; Carson did not appeal that initial OAH merits decision.
- A federal wrongful-death jury later (2008) found Carson was acting within the scope of his employment and entered judgment against Metrocities under respondeat superior.
- After the federal verdict, Carson moved to reopen his workers’ compensation claim under W.R.C.P. 60(b), submitting supplemental testimony and evidence; the OAH again denied reopening and reaffirmed the 2007 decision.
- The district court ordered the OAH to reopen initially (Carson I), but this Court remanded for the OAH to consider the supplemented record; upon reconsideration the OAH again denied relief; the district court affirmed and this appeal followed.
- The OAH found the supplemental evidence unpersuasive (inconsistent testimony, lack of documentation, possible witness bias) and concluded substantial evidence supported denial; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel binds the OAH to the federal court’s finding that Carson was acting in scope of employment at the accident | Carson: collateral estoppel applies because the federal jury decided the same factual issue and meets the preconditions for issue preclusion | Division/OAH: collateral estoppel inapplicable because (1) different legal contexts and tests (tort v. workers’ compensation), (2) retroactive application is improper, and (3) Carson had a prior administrative determination he did not timely appeal | Court: collateral estoppel does not apply; different policy/tests between tort and workers’ comp and retroactive preclusion is improper; OAH properly evaluated supplemented evidence and substantial evidence supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Carson, 252 P.3d 929 (Wyo. 2011) (procedural remand addressing supplementation and administrative reconsideration)
- Slavens v. Board of County Comm'rs, 854 P.2d 683 (Wyo. 1993) (administrative application of collateral estoppel and res judicata principles)
- Wilkinson v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Compensation Div., 991 P.2d 1228 (Wyo. 1999) (four-factor collateral estoppel test)
- Salt Creek Freightways v. Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Comm'n, 598 P.2d 435 (Wyo. 1979) (distinguishing collateral estoppel from res judicata in administrative context)
- Beard v. Brown, 616 P.2d 726 (Wyo. 1980) (distinguishing "scope/course" under tort law from workers' compensation law)
- Cottonwood Steel Corp. v. Hansen, 655 P.2d 1226 (Wyo. 1982) (explaining differences between tort scope and workers' compensation course/scope tests)
- Mills v. Reynolds, 807 P.2d 383 (Wyo. 1991) (purpose and rationale of workers' compensation regime)
- MAM v. State Dep't of Family Servs., 99 P.3d 982 (Wyo. 2004) (W.R.C.P. 60(b) relief is not barred by doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel)