Decision  Rosaida Ellis v. Harvard Vanguard Medical Assoc.

Date:	06/21/2011
Organization:	Department of Industrial Accidents
Docket Number:	DIA Board No. 001511-04
Location:	Boston

• Employee: Rosaida Ellis
• Employer: Harvard Vanguard Medical Assoc.
• Insurer: Sentry Insurance Company

COSTIGAN, J. The employee argues the administrative judge erred in ruling that her claim for weekly incapacity benefits based, in part, on a psychiatric disability, was barred by operation of res judicata.¹  We agree, reverse the judge's decision in part, and recommit the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¹  Res judicata is defined as,

[a] matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. Rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. [Citation omitted.] And to be applicable, requires identity in thing sued for as well as identity of cause of action, or persons and parties to action, and quality in persons for or against whom claim is made. The sum and substance of the whole rule is that a matter once judicially decided is finally decided. [Citation omitted.]

Black's Law Dictionary, 1305-1306 (6^th ed. 1990).

"Res judicata" bars relitigation of the same cause of action between the same parties where there is a prior judgment, whereas "collateral estoppel" bars relitigation of a particular issue or determinative fact.

Id. at 1306. "The term 'res judicata' describes doctrines by which a judgment has a binding effect in future actions. It comprises both claim preclusion (also known as 'merger' and 'bar') and issue preclusion (also known as 'collateral estoppel')". Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 530 n.3 (2002). Because both the original litigation and the decision now on appeal in this case involved more than the psychiatric claim, we think collateral estoppel was the more accurate defense to be raised by the insurer, and the more accurate bar available to the judge in the second hearing. This distinction, however, does not alter our analysis of the employee's appeal.