Wiser v. Montana Board of Dentistry
2011 MT 56
Mont.2011Background
- Wiser and Conlan are licensed denturists; BOD regulates denturitry.
- Wiser I challenged BOD authority/enforcement, and the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- This case challenges Admin. R.M. 24.138.2302(1)(j) as invalid due to statutory conflict and due process concerns.
- BOD issued complaints in 2007 and subpoenas in 2009 to Conlan and Wiser for alleged unprofessional conduct (fitting over implants).
- District court granted summary judgment to BOD on res judicata grounds; issue on appeal is whether res judicata bars the current action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the current action is barred by res judicata due to prior adjudication | Wiser/Conlan: subject matter and issues differ; enforcement actions post-Wiser I are new facts | BOD: same subject matter and issues; final judgment in Wiser I bars this action | Yes; res judicata bars the current action for all four elements |
| Whether the subject matter is the same | Subject matter differed because Wiser I challenged authority broadly, not enforcement against individuals | Subject matter is same—the regulation and its enforcement against denturists | Yes; subject matter substantially the same |
| Whether the issues are identical | New theories in current case distinguish it from Wiser I | Underlying issue—invalidity of Admin. R.M. 24.138.2302(1)(j)—is identical | Yes; issues essentially identical despite narrower theories |
| Whether capacities of the parties were the same | Appellants acted on behalf of the profession in Wiser I | Appellants litigated the same claim in the same capacity | Yes; capacities were the same |
| Whether new facts post-Wiser I create a different state of facts | 2007 complaint and 2009 subpoenas introduced new facts | New actions still rest on same regulatory challenge; not a different state of facts | No; not a different state of facts; barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlem Irrigation District v. Montana Seventeenth Judicial District Court, 271 Mont. 129 (Mont. 1995) (subject matter of second suit same as first for relief related to district actions)
- Parini v. Missoula Co. High Sch., 284 Mont. 14 (Mont. 1997) (final judgment bars relitigation of issues)
- Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51 (Mont. 2006) (res judicata applies after final judgment; relitigation barred)
- Somont Oil Co., Inc. v. A & G Drilling, Inc., 2008 MT 447 (Mont. 2008) (four-part test for res judicata)
- Phelan v. Lee Blaine Enters., 220 Mont. 296 (Mont. 1986) (whether second case raised same precise question as first)
- Brault v. Smith, 209 Mont. 21 (Mont. 1984) (capacity and status of parties relevant to res judicata)
- Mills v. Lincoln Co., 262 Mont. 283 (Mont. 1993) (summary judgment as final judgment for res judicata)