*1 with Ark. Ct. R. record has compliance 4-3(h), Sup. been examined for adverse Hall but not rulings objected and no error is found. argued appeal, prejudicial Affirmed. SERVICE, INC.,
Lance R. CRAVEN v. FULTON SANITATION Services, Inc., Arkansas, d/b/a Sun Inc., d/b/a USA Ray Waste of
and Kendale Lloyd Toney
04-791
Supreme 14, 2005 delivered Opinion April *3 Nolan, P.A., Caddell, Caddell & Fred L. Reynolds, by: for appellant.
Ledbetter, Harrison, L.L.P., Arnold & Diane E. Cogbill, by: Graham, for appellees. L. Lance R. Craven filed a Appellant Corbin, Justice.
Don al d suit the Sebastian negligence Circuit County Court Service, Inc., Fulton Sanitation against Appellees Sun d/b/a Services, Inc., Arkansas, Ray d/b/a Waste USA of Inc. (“Fulton”), and Kendale The trial court Lloyd Toney. granted summary judg ment to on that an adverse Appellees decision from the ground Workers’ Commission barred suit under Appellant’s the doctrine of collateral contends that the trial estoppel. Appellant court’s it ruling erroneous because violates his constitutional to right a trial and his to suit by jury Ark. bring under party Code Ann. The ll-9-410(a)(l)(A) 2002). Arkansas of (Repl. Court certified this case to Appeals us issue first presenting impres sion as to whether a an administrative judgment by bemay agency given effect such caseswhere the preclusive has the to litigant trial. Our is thus to jurisdiction Ct. R. pursuant Sup. We l-2(b) (1). reverse the order of and remand for summary judgment further in this matter. proceedings The relevant facts are not and the dispute, parties agree
that
law,
this
appeal
which this court
presents only questions
Home,
de
v. Pine
Nursing
reviews
novo.SeeBrown
Bluff
McCastlain,
Holt
Appellant against Appellees his for lower-back injuries.1 Appellees damages seeking on that the moved summary ground judgment ALJ’s from determination of issue causation precluded effect it. that argued giving preclusive relitigating Appellant the issue causation would Commission’s deprive his to have that factual issue determined him of constitutional right 1 l-9-410(a)(1)(A) specifi- He also section jury. argued of a claim for workers’ compensa- cally provides making *4 in to maintain an action shall not affect the tion employee’s right The trial court summary court a against party. granted and judgment, Appellant appealed. res is whether the doctrine of judicata
The sole issue appeal be to a final of the Workers’ Compensation may judgment applied so as to bar the constitutional Commission employee’s trial tortfeasor. concept third-party against and two facets: claim issue doctrine of res preclusion judicata Waters, 386, 91 Ark. 182 S.W.3d See v. 357 Barclay preclusion. 307, 100 711 (2003); 352 Ark. S.W.3d v. (2004); Searcy Davenport, 632, Pinson, Ark. 855 Inc. v. 313 S.W.2d Cheeseman Trucking, John further on a forecloses (1993). litigation 941 Claim preclusion 1 neck and sought damages for the to his Although upper Appellant initially in he withdrew claim. back, in addition to those his lower later back, action,
cause of while issue forecloses further preclusion litigation with a issue. Id. connection certain Issue is the preclusion type of res case. involved this judicata
Issue
better known in
state as
this
collateral
preclusion,
bars
of issues of law or fact
estoppel,
relitigation
previously
that the
whom
earlier
litigated,
is
decision
provided
party against
asserted had a full
fair
and
being
issue
opportunity
litigate
and
the issue was essential
question
to the judgment. Beaver
Q.
Hotels,
359,
Hammons
Ordinarily,
either
the form
judicata,
claim
or issue
preclusion
based on a
preclusion,
final
applied
Flowever,
issued
judgment
court.
doctrine has been
in this state
applied
to issues determined
final
decree of an administrative
both
agency.
this court
Significantly,
and the
court
have held that the doctrine is
appeals
applicable
decisions of the Workers’
Beaver,
Commission.
See
359, 138
664;
355 Ark.
Brider,
S.W.3d
Mohawk Tire &
Co.
Rubber
v.
259 Ark.
While the commissionis not it exercises functionsin its gwijji-judicial investigations and determinationsand itsawardsarein the natureof The doctrine judgments. of res judicata which forbidsthe of matters reopening oncejudicially determined *5 aswell by competent to decisionsof a authorityapplies commission or board workmen’s administering acts as to judg-
395 50 C.J.S.,Judg- courts having general judicial powers. merits of ments, in C.J., is 71 p. The rule followed stated generally 690. 1195, in has follows: “The award compensationproceedings nature a in the effect of the verdict of a jury. Being force and of the determines the rights and conclusively judgment, finally acts set asidein a unless under workmen’s parties manner, of a court and is as as a binding and proper See,also, faith and credit as such judgment.” entitled to the same 122 Anno. A.L.R. 550. 214-15, at S.W.2d 388.
None of the cases foregoing cases. trial in civil Notwithstanding, constitutional right jury in Andrews that the award contend that the statement Appellees of a verdict has the force and effect jury compensation proceedings to the the issue has been decided. also that Appellees point implies doctrine of of the statement the court of application appeals to bar actions “is res to administrative judicata especially appropriate conducted a new when an trial-type proceedings agency v. the law.” Brandon Arkansas made hearing, applied findings, 210-11, 193, Co., 201, 61 200 76 Ark. S.W.3d Western Gas App. Moore, 1999)). 589 902 We (N.D. Fuchs v. N.W.2d (2001) (citing hand, of the issue at do not view these as being holdings dispositive not be to bar an we that the doctrine conclude may applied factual in an action from determine issues employee having jury at law party. 2, 7, of the Arkansas Constitution
Article
Section
provides
trial
shall remain
by jury
pertinent part
“[t]he
law,
inviolate,
to the
to all cases at
without regard
and shall extend
under
trial
this
amount
jury
controversy[.]”
Bank,
v. First
a fundamental
Walker
Commercial
right.
provision
617,
N.A.,
v. Bank
(1994);
Ark.
396 Act, our
Under current Workers’ an em- the trial in an the action gives up ployee against That for unintentional work-related employer injuries. with the of Amendment to the Arkansas 26
vanquished
passage
32,
Constitution,
now found Article
which
Section
the
gave
means, method,
the
and forum for
legislature
power
provide
claims
under the workers’
law.
arising
adjudicating
compensation
Grimmett v.
267
See
The
and remedies
under the Act
rights
granted
employees
of all
are exclusive
other
and remedies of the
from
rights
employee
Ark. Code Ann.
employer.
ll-9-105(a)
(Repl. 2002).
reason for such
is found in the
behind
exclusivity
general purpose
laws,
our workers’
which was to
com-
compensation
change
mon law
the burden of all work-related
from
by shifting
individual
and
to the
employers
employees
consuming public,
with the
of fault
concept
immaterial.2 Brown v.
being virtually
932
Finney,
S.W.2d 769
Simmons
Nat’l
(1996);
First
Bank v.
285 Ark.
The making shallnot for the or death injury employee carrier affect *7 claimor her to makea the or his or dependents, right employee, of but the injury, court the any party maintainan actionin against be to reasonable carrier shall entitled or the employer’s in the action. join [Emphasis notice and to opportunity added.] in at bar are third that the case parties There no Appellees dispute a to maintain the right under Act. Accordingly, Appellant court, he has the fact that already them in action against despite claim his employer. pursued compensation against con- with the section ll-9-410(a)(l)(A) along Construing the in civil cases and trial considering stitutional right jury Act, the we conclude that of the Workers’ Compensation purpose in effect to the Commission’s trial court erred preclusive giving of of causation. this issue is one on the issue Although Arkansas, in case from in we find a similar guidance first impression Minnesota. Simon, 2004), 674 N.W.2d Ct. (Minn. App. Heine did of held that collateral
the Minnesota Court Appeals estoppel where bar the claim tortfeasor not against third-party plaintiffs that the determination concluded the workers’ compensation the not the accident with were caused plaintiffs by There, state, it held that in this had been defendant. previously to deci- the of res workers’ principles judicata apply compensation However, the Heine court concluded sions certain instances. did civil suit because that collateral not bar estoppel employee’s available the workers’ compensation proceed- procedures in a civil suit. As were different from those available markedly ings such, full the court held that deprived plaintiff to the issue of causation before fair agency. opportunity litigate The court explained: not by are bound common hearings Workers’ compensation evidence, or pleading
law rules of nor are rules statutory Additionally, is admissible. hearsay Reliable procedure applicable. trial a workers’ is no jury there right the recordbefore the nature of the proceedings claim. Basedon us, not did hearing conclude that workers’ we a full and fair
provide to be heard for opportunity purpose the doctrine of collateral in Heine’s applying estoppel negligence action tortfeasor. third-party at Id. 423 (citations omitted). before our Workers’
Proceedings
Commission and its
officers are
informal
hearing
Commission is not bound
technical or
rules
statutory
evidence or
technical or formal
rules of
conduct
procedure
Ark. Code Ann.
ing
(a)
11-9-705
More
hearing.
2002).
(Repl.
before the Commission
importantly,
do not
proceedings
for the
to have a
determine
provide
jury
factual issues. Given
trial,
the nature of these
the lack of a
proceedings, especially
jury
we
conclude
the Commission’s decision
give
preclusive
effect would
of a full and
deprive
fair
opportunity
the issue.
litigate
Article
Section
our
constitution makes
law, i.e.,
clear that the
ato
in all
trial
cases at
civil and
*8
cases,
criminal
is inviolate
it is
unless
waived
It is
litigant.
due to the
of
constitutional stature
this
with the
right, along
right
to redress of
found in Article
Section
that
wrongs
made
to amend our constitution
necessary
before
could
legislature
laws,
establish our workers’
as those laws
compensation
effectively
of
strip
these
employees
claims
their
rights
against
employers.
Grimmett,
In under our state constitution and the Workers’ Act, an of a employee injured by negligence the issue of determine to have jury is entitled party causation, Ark. Code factual issues. See also well as other any as in an that issues of fact (1987) Ann. 16-64-103(b) (providing be shall tried by jury at law for the recovery money action that the trial We therefore conclude trial is waived). unless deter- the Commission’s effect to court erred in giving preclusive causation, we reverse order mination on the issue for further and remand proceedings. summary judgment and remanded. Reversed
Imber, J., concurs. the majority As concurring. Imber, Justice,
Clinton out, collateral four to apply estoppel, points Annabelle to be must elements must be satisfied: the issue (1) sought precluded must that involved in the the issue (2) be the same as prior litigation; the issue must have been determined (3) have been actually litigated; the determination must have (4) a valid and final judgment; Hotels, Q. been essential to the Beaver Hammons judgment. John in the case before the 664 (2003). 138 S.W.3d for his lumbar Commission damages Workers’ Compensation sought herniated disc the Workers’ Compensation strain and injuries. Case, made the findings:1 following ALJ he any “compens-
The claimanthas failedto sustained prove his lumbar either the form of spine, able lower back or injury” discs, in (sic) or a two herniated the specific lumbar strain He has (MVA) related incident of March 1999. employment strainis based lumbar medicallydiagnosedinjury prove failed Ark. CodeAnn. supportedby objectivefindings, requiredby upon any *9 medicallydiagnosed He has to the prove ll-9-102(5)(D).2 § failed discs or twoherniatedlumbar and documented objectively injury defectof relatedincident were relatedto the any causally specificemployment in way he has failed on March 1999. Therefore (MVA) prove the out and occurred in course such an or defect arose injury (Repl. 2002). These The cited findings statutory provision by ALJ were now thereafter appears adopted by at Code the Full Ann. Commission. § ll-9-102(4)(D) incident,
his was due to a employment, by and identifiable specific occurrence, place time and Ark. Code Ann. 11—9—§ 102(5)(A)(i).3 order, As demonstrated added.) concluded (Emphasis by ALJ
that the of two herniated lumbar discs was not injury related causally 10,1999. to the vehicle motor accident March With to the regard strain, however, lumbar concluded that faded ALJ that the of a lumbar strain was prove injury based medically-diagnosed section upon supported by any objective findings, required by Unlike the 11-9-102(4) (D). to the herniated finding pertaining ALJ’s discs, the the lumbar strain does not address the finding concerning Indeed, issue of causation. that “the medical acknowledged ALJ evidence have established that the may [Appellant] experienced 10,1999 lumbar strain in the motor vehicle accident of March . . ..” Therefore, the issue of whether lumbar-strain Appellant’s injury caused the automobde accident has by be determined. yet
In the filed lawsuit subsequent against Appellee, Appellant in his second amended that “as alleges a direct result and complaint of the acts proximate consequence negligent [Appellee], sustained serious both [Appellant] injuries, temporary perma- nent . to his lumbar . . .” added). As noted spine (Emphasis to the injuries lumbar included ALJ, in form of a spine injuries Here, lumbar strain and two herniated discs. made ALJ of no causal specific between the finding herniated- relationship accident, disc and the motor vehicle but he explicitly declined to make similar with the connection lumbar- finding strain In the absence of such injury. collateral any finding, estoppel does not on whether the lumbar- preclude subsequent litigation strain was caused the automobile injury accident.
Moreover, workers’ cases which damages are each are not adjudicated separately type bodily injury Simon, actions at iaw. In preclusive subsequent Heine v. N.W.2d 411 (Minn. Ct. the Minnesota Court of 2004), App. held that the elements of collateral were Appeals not estoppel satisfied due to the distinction between how claims are adjudicated in workers’ how causes of action proceedings are courts litigated of law. so the court said: holding, 3 Similarly, statutory provision the cited now appears at Ark. Ann. 11-9- Code 102(4)(A)(i) (Repl.2002).
401 not litigated aslost is wages, such damages, The issueofliability Doeren, v. SeeKatzenmaier proceedings. workers’compensation 938, 521, 522-23, 938 Workers’ 185 N.W. Minn. 150 the amount workers’ determine generally actions when an is liable for which benefits Minn. See injured during scope employment. employee 176.021, 1 (2002). subd. Stat.§ “in that the issuesadjudicated Id. 422. The Heine court concluded at from those dissimilar action were factually workers’ compensation reason, the collateral estoppel in district court.” For that litigated litigation. doctrine did not subsequent preclude be made in this case. The Workers’ A similar distinction can Commission made “compensability” separate sustained determination for each alleged injury by Appellant; is, whether sustained determined the Commission Appellant back back or lower neck injury, injury, upper “compensable” be deter- the circuit court would not The issues before injury. rather, the would be jury mined on the basis each alleged injury; whether sustained damages; asked to determine (1) whether such (3) (2) negli- whether negligent; Appellee See, AMI cause of damages. e.g., was proximate Appellant’s gence words, circuit would instruct In other court Civil 203. if what were caused by to determine injuries, any, jury Thus, in this claims accident. injury adjudicated automobile are dissimilar to those factually workers’ compensation proceeding at law be action that would presented Appellant’s Appellee. reasons, we reverse I should agree
For the above stated and remand for further of summary proceed the order issue However, resolving I decline majority join ings. constitu court’s order violates of whether circuit Appellant’s 7 of the Arkansas trial under Article Section tional that we will a well-settled This court has principle Constitution. essential issue if it is not a constitutional avoid resolving Ark. 132 S.W.3d v. the case. Landers deciding Jameson, 470 (1990); 788 S.W.2d Virdenv. 741 (2003); Roper, Center, Hills Board Evelyn Shopping Equal. 211 (1972). S.W.2d