A vexing legal concept is the requirement for trials to be conclusions. Once a trial has occurred and the facts have been evaluated and adjudicated, re-litigating those facts is seen at worst as pure repetitiveness, and at best as less than productive. There are a great variety of laws, and a single factual situation might give rise to implicating a variety of those laws. For example, the facts surrounding an employee's cessation of employment at a particular business might be grounds for the employee to be entitled to unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and perhaps civil damages.
It makes sense, in some settings, for the facts and circumstances of that event itself, the cessation of employment, to be heard once. In that singular proceeding, the process would determine the facts (who did what, when they did, how they did, why they did, etc.). Collateral estoppel is a legal principle that prevents the parties in the second (or any subsequent) suit from litigating those facts in question which were actually adjudicated in the first suit. See Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
It is worth noting that this legal maxim is not isolated to workers' compensation proceedings. The inclination against re-litigating is applied even when the various issues are being tried in different proceedings, jurisdictions, or systems. However, it is clear at least in Florida that workers' “compensation orders are governed by the same principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case as are applied to judgments in other courts, except to the extent section 440.28, Florida Statutes, permits modification." PLM Florida Hotels, Inc. v. DeMarseul, 611 So. 2d 1360, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
In workers' compensation, the application of these legal principles in the same proceeding also exists. A workers' compensation case might be litigated repeatedly regarding different benefits, treatments, etc. Workers' compensation cases are often serial as a result of the very nature of the statutory benefit construct.
Thus, some factual issues such as how an accident or injury occurred may be part of some claim for specific medical testing or care; an order would follow such litigation. Thereafter, months or years could pass before another claim is filed for other care or perhaps some description of indemnity benefits. In that second trial, the same legal concept of "collateral estoppel" might be applied to preclude re-litigating the facts of how the accident or injury occurred. When applied in the same case or controversy, this legal maxim is more commonly referred to as "law of the case."
The essential elements of collateral estoppel are:
(1) that the parties and issues be identical,
(2) that the particular matter be fully litigated and determined in a contest,
(3) which results in a final decision,
(4) in a court of competent jurisdiction.
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So.2d 78, 79-80 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). These requirements are significant. The "issues" referred to may be factual issues; the factual determinations in one proceeding might therefore not be allowed to be relitigated in another. And, if the legal issues are identical, they may similarly be denied relitigation in a subsequent proceeding in this same case.
Therefore, issues litigated before a judge of compensation claims and reduced to a final order, subject to the requirements noted above, likely may not be tried again before another judge of compensation claims. There is a potential, however, that those issues litigated before a judge of compensation claims might nonetheless be relitigated in a court.
This is because judges of compensation claims, in Florida at least, are not a court. Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure, 891 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2004). It is possible that a constitutional court could conclude that prior litigation in an administrative workers' compensation proceeding does not satisfy the requirements above. This may particularly be a concern if a party would be entitled to a jury in the subsequent proceeding, a procedure that is not afforded in workers' compensation. The potential nonetheless exists that a court could conclude that a party is precluded from relitigating some particular fact or facts. That decision is left to that court in which the later proceedings occur.
Furthermore, the previous conclusions and findings, from that original proceeding, become irrelevant if an appellate court reverses the ultimate decision that was rendered in that first proceeding. Though this is a point of law that lacks a specific authority, this outcome is perhaps intuitive. In East Bay Union of Machinists, etc. v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 285 F. Supp. 282, 286 (D. Cal. 1968), the Court held that “the reversal with directions for a new trial placed the parties in the same position as if the action had never been tried, except that the opinion of the District Court of Appeal must be followed in the State Trial Court as the law of the case." (Citations omitted).
Thus, there are instances in which parties might re-litigate issues. However, all parties should be aware of the potential that their first attempt at litigating issues might be the only opportunity that they have. It is important to consider the presentation of all pertinent and relevant evidence in the initial trial. Certainly, there may be tactical reasons why one may decide to forgo certain evidence in any trial. However, such decisions should be knowing and carefully considered. The potential exists that parties will live with initial rulings in the first litigation; that should be caution regarding preparedness, thoughtfulness, and thoroughness.
.
