New York: Defendant in Civil Action Could Not Claim Collateral Estoppel Based on Board’s Earlier Decision as to Extent of Plaintiff’s Injury

A New York trial court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ personal injury suit on the ground of collateral estoppel, where the issue of whether the injured plaintiff sustained an acquired traumatic brain injury due to a work-related auto accident was not raised or considered by the Workers’ Compensation Board in the injured plaintiff’s earlier claim before the Board. In plaintiff’s workers’ compensation case, the Board found that the injured plaintiff sustained a work-related injury to his back and neck and experienced related post-traumatic headaches as a result of his work-related injury. The Board noted that the injured plaintiff had returned to work within the week and determined that, at that time, there was either no evidence or insufficient evidence that the injured plaintiff sustained a permanent restriction or loss of use as a result of the accident. One year later, the injured plaintiff (and his wife) filed a civil action against another driver and that driver’s employer, alleging negligence. The defendants contended that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the injured plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d). The issues were not identical to those earlier decided by the Board.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis

See Melendez v. McCrowell, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3882 (2nd Dep’t, May 25, 2016)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 127.07.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site