W. Merrell v. WCAB (PA DOC)
493 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 6, 2017Background
- Wayne Merrell, a corrections officer trainee, hyperextended his right knee descending steps on October 12, 2013; he continued working but later sought treatment and was restricted to sedentary duty.
- Employer denied Heart and Lung Act benefits; an arbitrator (under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement) held on January 8, 2014 and awarded Merrell temporary Heart and Lung benefits, crediting his testimony and Dr. Greene’s treating opinion over Employer’s expert, Dr. Cooper.
- Merrell subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking disability benefits from October 29, 2013; at the WCJ hearing Merrell sought to preclude relitigation of disability based on the arbitration award but submitted no medical evidence to the WCJ.
- Employer presented Dr. Cooper’s medical deposition in the workers’ compensation proceeding, contending the arbitration did not preclude further litigation of disability.
- The WCJ granted medical benefits but denied disability, holding she was not collaterally estopped by the arbitration award; the Board affirmed. Merrell appealed to this Court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the arbitrator’s Heart and Lung award did not have collateral estoppel effect in the workers’ compensation proceeding because Employer lacked a full and fair opportunity or sufficient incentives to litigate disability in the arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Merrell's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award of Heart and Lung temporary disability precludes relitigation of disability in a subsequent workers’ compensation claim (collateral estoppel) | The arbitrator’s finding of temporary disability is identical to the WCJ’s disability issue and thus precludes relitigation | Arbitration did not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate disability because Heart and Lung proceedings are temporary and less formal; therefore no preclusive effect | No preclusion; arbitration award does not collaterally estop WCJ from deciding disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 909 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2006) (compare amount at stake and formality of proceedings to determine preclusive effect)
- Wagner-Stover v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 6 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Act 632 adjudication precluded relitigation where amount at risk and procedures were comparable)
- Rue v. K-Mart Corp., 713 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1998) (party must have adequate opportunity and incentive to litigate for collateral estoppel to apply)
- Gwinn v. Pennsylvania State Police, 668 A.2d 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (Heart and Lung benefits are temporary and terminate when disability is found permanent or claimant returns to work)
- Cerro Metal Products Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (PLEWA), 855 A.2d 932 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (standards for admissible, sufficiently definite medical evidence on causation)
- Ingrassia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Universal Health Services), 126 A.3d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (reasoned decision requirement under Section 422(a) ensures meaningful appellate review)
- McGill v. Southwark Realty Co., 828 A.2d 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (policy basis for collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues fairly decided)