Res Judicata Does Not Bar Second Claim for PTD Benefits

In Temples v. WDW Hospitality & Recreation Corp., decided on 8/29/2008, the First District reiterated that an unsuccessful claim for permanent total disability ("PTD") benefits does not necessarily bar a subsequent claim for PTD.   See also Myers v. Hillsborough Co. School Bd., a case which I discussed here.

Petition Not Barred by Res Judicata Where Based On Newly Discovered Evidence

As I discussed here, "res judicata" is an equitable doctrine that bars the re-litigation of claims and issues that have already been litigated.  But the doctrine also bars claims and issues that could have been but were not litigated at an earlier proceeding.  That's what was at issue in Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs, decided on 8/15/2008.

 

Ms. Thomas went to a hearing before the JCC in March 2005 with respect to several issues, including the compensability of a lumbar problem allegedly stemming from her otherwise compensable on-the-job accident.  Although she had undergone a lumbar MRI scan prior to that hearing, she had never been told the results of the exam.  In fact, she had been told by her personal physicians that there was "nothing wrong" with her back.  Having no evidence of her true diagnosis or its causal connection to the accident, she therefore dismissed her lumbar claims prior to the hearing.   

 

Continue Reading...

Res Judicata Does Not Bar Second Claim for PTD Benefits

Res judicata (literally, "a thing decided") is an equitable doctrine which bars the re-litigation of claims and issues that have already been determined in an earlier judicial proceeding.  Does that doctrine bar a claim for permanent total disability benefits where the JCC has previously considered and denied such a claim?  Not necessarily, said the First DCA in Myers v. Hillsborough County School Board, decided on 4/23/2008.

 

Myers had filed a claim for an award of PTD benefits commencing in April 2000 which the JCC denied in April 2004.  In September 2006, he filed a second claim for PTD benefits, this time commencing in September 2005.  Because the second PTD claim covered a different time period, and because the April 2004 denial "did not go to the entire merits of future disability claims," the First DCA said the second PTD claim was not barred by res judicata.