Starbucks Coffee Company and American Zurich Insurance Company v. Kristin Shy
734 S.E.2d 683
Va. Ct. App.2012Background
- Claimant Kristin Shy injured her upper back on December 8, 2009, at Starbucks and was placed on workers’ compensation leave the next day.
- January 26, 2010, claimant attempted an unsuccessful light-duty return to work at Starbucks, reporting extreme pain and an inability to perform full shifts.
- Claimant stopped working for Starbucks in March 2010, was placed on another leave of absence, and an award for temporary total disability began December 8, 2009; the July 27, 2010 award order was later deemed final.
- November 26, 2010, claimant worked 12 hours over two light-duty shifts for American Eagle and resigned in December 2010; she enrolled as a full-time student at Blue Ridge Community College on January 9, 2011.
- Starbucks filed four applications (Dec 3, 2010; Apr 4, 2011; May 18, 2011; May 25, 2011) seeking termination or suspension of benefits based on alleged changes in condition or abandonment of the labor force; the deputy commissioner rejected these, and the full Commission affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did res judicata bar review of the January 26, 2010 return to work? | Starbucks: not final; merits not litigated. | Shy: final award precludes later review. | Res judicata barred review of the January 26, 2010 return to work. |
| Was the November 26, 2010 return to work with American Eagle a change in condition? | Starbucks: any return to work constitutes change in condition. | Return must be substantial; here not enough evidence of change. | Not a change in condition; evidence insufficient to terminate benefits. |
| Did claimant’s enrollment in college amount to abandonment of the labor force? | Claimant’s enrollment does not equal abandonment; ongoing open award. | Enrollment demonstrates abandonment of labor market. | Enrollment not abandonment; open award persists and claimant not required to market capacity. |
| Did Code § 65.2-712 require claimant to disclose full-time student status to the commission? | Disclose status to the commission. | Statutory dependent disclosure applies to dependents, not claimants. | Code § 65.2-712 disclosure not required of claimant; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation, 59 Va. App. 39 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (relationship of the Commission to an award is like a court to a judgment; contested matters involve rights arising from a transaction)
- Pruden v. Plasser Am. Corp., 45 Va. App. 566 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (final decisions bind the commission absent timely review; res judicata analysis (quoting Thurber))
- Miller v. Smith, 109 Va. 651 (Va. 1909) (final decree precludes any claims that could have been raised in the prior suit)
- Smith v. Holland, 124 Va. 663 (Va. 1919) (final decree bars claims reasonably belonging to the subject of the prior litigation)
- Celanese Fibers Co. v. Johnson, 229 Va. 117 (Va. 1985) (threshold test of compensability: employee must be able to perform preinjury duties)