Molnar v. JRL S. Hampton, LLC

212 A.D.3d 974

182 N.Y.S.3d 791

In the Matter of the Claim of John MOLNAR, Appellant,

v.JRL SOUTH HAMPTON, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

534670

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: December 14, 2022

Decided and Entered: January 12, 2023

John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant.

Law Offices of Melissa A. Day, PLLC, Amherst (Shannan M. Mackey of counsel), for JRL South Hampton, LLC and another, respondents.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Egan Jr., J.P. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 23, 2021, which, among other things, ruled that the instant claim is precluded because it was previously litigated before the Workers’ Compensation Board and was disallowed.

In March 2021, claimant, an auto mechanic, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits alleging an occupational disease of the bilateral wrists and hands with a date of disablement of February 4, 2021. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier) controverted the claim (hereinafter the instant claim), asserting, among other defenses, that there was no causal relationship and that the instant claim was duplicative of two prior claims. Of those two prior claims, the first claim, with a date of disablement of September 18, 2007, was established for occupational bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and ultimately resulted in claimant receiving schedule loss of use awards of 16.25% for the right hand and 11.25% for the left hand. The second claim alleging a repetitive-use injury to claimant's bilateral wrists was, in an August 2020 decision, disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found that claimant failed to establish that his alleged injuries were causally related to his employment.¹

In August 2021, a hearing ensued to address the carrier's contention that the instant claim, and the issues raised therein, was duplicative of the second claim that was disallowed by the Board. Following the hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) disallowed the instant claim, finding that it is "an occupational disease [claim] involving both wrists arising out of ... claimant's work as an automobile mechanic" and is therefore an attempt to relitigate the previously disallowed claim. Upon administrative review, the Board affirmed the decision of the WCLJ, finding, among other things, that the issue here – to wit, whether claimant demonstrated a causal link between his employment and his alleged repetitive-use injury in his wrist – was identical to the issue raised in the second claim and therefore precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. "The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same" ( Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487 [1984] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Timperio v. Bronx–Lebanon Hosp., 203 A.D.3d 179, 183, 163 N.Y.S.3d 302 [3d Dept. 2022] ). "The doctrine applies only where the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the party who is being estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action" ( Simmons v. Trans Express, Inc., 37 N.Y.3d 107, 112, 148...