Opinion
No. CA12-528
02-13-2013
CARL JOHNSON APPELLANT v. U.S. FOOD SERVICE, INC., INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and SECOND INJURY FUND APPELLEES
Carl Johnson, pro se appellant. Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F711461]
AFFIRMED
ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge
Carl Johnson, acting pro se, appeals an opinion of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission in which the Commission found that his claim for benefits was barred by res judicata and that the employer and insurance carrier were entitled to recover fees and costs. We affirm the decision of the Commission.
In 2008, Johnson filed a claim for benefits with the Commission in which he alleged that he sustained compensable low-back and left-shoulder injuries on September 21, 2007. After a hearing held on November 4, 2008, an administrative law judge found that the alleged left-shoulder injury was compensable but the alleged low-back injury was not. In so finding, the ALJ noted that while Johnson tested positive for PCP immediately after the injury, he had overcome the presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by the use of illegal drugs. The Commission found that Johnson failed to rebut the statutory presumption and, as a result, denied his claim in its entirety. Johnson appealed to this court, which affirmed the Commission's decision in an opinion handed down on January 6, 2010. Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 14. Subsequent petitions for rehearing and review were denied by this court and our supreme court, respectively.
On April 29, 2011, Johnson filed a second claim for benefits with the Commission in which he again alleged that he sustained compensable low-back and left-shoulder injuries on September 21, 2007. The employer and insurance carrier moved to dismiss the claim as barred by res judicata. They also requested that they be awarded fees and costs incurred in defending the claim and that sanctions be assessed against Johnson.
After a hearing, in which Johnson appeared pro se, the ALJ found that Johnson's claim was barred by res judicata and granted appellees' motion to dismiss. The ALJ further found that the employer and insurance carrier were entitled to costs and attorney's fees to be determined after the appeal process was completed. Johnson appealed to the Commission, which affirmed and adopted the decision of the ALJ. This appeal followed.
When reviewing a decision of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission. Greene v. Cockram Concrete Co., 2012 Ark. App. 691. This court must affirm the decision of the Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is that evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion of the Commission. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether the appellate court might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, the appellate court must affirm its decision. Id. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Young v. Blytheville Sch. Dist., 2013 Ark. App. 50, ___ S.W.3d ___.
The primary issue in this case is whether the Commission was correct in determining that appellant's most recent claim is barred by res judicata. Res judicata can and does apply to workers' compensation cases if the merits of the issue have already been subject to a full and fair hearing. O'Hara v. J. Christy Constr. Co., 94 Ark. App. 143, 146, 227 S.W.3d 443, 445-46 (2006). The ALJ determined that Johnson was given a full and fair opportunity to present his claim in 2008. Under Arkansas law, the Commission is permitted to adopt the ALJ's decision. Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Branum, 82 Ark. App. 338, 107 S.W.3d 876 (2003). The Commission chose to affirm and adopt the decision of the ALJ in this case. By doing so, the Commission made the ALJ's findings and conclusions the findings and conclusions of the Commission. Id. Therefore, for purposes of our review, we consider both the ALJ's order and the Commission's majority order.
The claim-preclusion aspect of res judicata bars relitigation of a claim in a subsequent suit when five factors are present: (1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based upon proper jurisdiction; (3) the first suit was fully contested in good faith; (4) both suits involve the same claim or cause of action; and (5) both suits involve the same parties or their privies. Winrock Grass Farm, Inc. v. Affiliated Real Estate Appraisers of Ark., Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 279, 373 S.W.3d 907 (2010). The ALJ and Commission determined that all five factors were met in this case. We agree. The Commission's original denial of the claim clearly constituted a final judgment on the merits of the claim. Because appellant alleged that he sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment, there is no question that the Commission had jurisdiction over the claim. Both actions involve the same claim or cause of action, and both actions involve the same parties or their privies.
The sole point of contention at the hearing was Johnson's assertion that the first suit was not fully contested in good faith. He argues on appeal, as he did before the Commission, that he did not previously have a full and fair opportunity to prove his claim because he did not have certain medical records from 2004 that revealed a prior back injury. The records from 2004 obviously existed at the time of the 2008 hearing. Johnson would have been aware of his prior back injury and, if he believed that those medical documents would have assisted in his claim, he had a duty to provide those to the Commission at that time. Additionally, the existence of a prior back injury has no bearing upon the basis for the Commission's denial of the claim. As noted above, the Commission determined that Johnson failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his accident was caused by the presence of illegal drugs in his system. The existence of a prior injury is not relevant in any way toward that determination. Johnson was given a full and fair opportunity to present his claim in 2008. The Commission correctly determined that the elements of claim-preclusion res judicata were met in this case.
The ALJ and Commission also noted the following exceptions to the application of res judicata: (1) fraud or collusion in the procurement of the first judgment, and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co., 338 Ark. 752, 1 S.W.3d 443 (1999). There is absolutely no evidence of fraud or collusion in the original claim. There is, as stated above, no question that the Commission had jurisdiction over Johnson's claim for benefits from an alleged work-related injury. Neither exception to the application of res judicata applies here. The Commission was correct in determining that Johnson's claim is barred by res judicata.
The sole remaining issue in this case is the Commission's assessment of costs and attorney's fees against Johnson. The Commission determined that appellees were entitled to an award of costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 11-9-714 and 11-9-717. If the court having jurisdiction of proceedings in respect of any claim or compensation order determines that the proceedings in respect to the claim or order have been instituted or continued without reasonable grounds, the cost of the proceedings shall be assessed against the party who has instituted or continued the proceedings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 (Repl. 2012). Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-717(a)(2)(B) (Repl. 2012) requires a person who signs a claim for benefits or other pleading before the Commission, including a pro se claimant, to attest that the claim is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. If a claim for benefits violates section 11-9-717(a)(2), the Commission may impose sanctions, including expenses and a reasonable attorney's fee. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-717(a)(4) (Repl. 2012).
The Commission determined that Johnson's claim was brought without reasonable grounds and was not well grounded in fact. He makes no argument in his brief as to why costs and attorney's fees should not be imposed, apart from requesting that they not be imposed. Furthermore, the Commission's finding that Johnson violated sections 11-9-714 and 11-9-717 is supported by substantial evidence. Johnson was repeatedly advised by the ALJ to thoroughly research his claim. Appellees also made it clear that they would seek sanctions very early in the proceedings. Despite these warnings, Johnson proceeded with a claim that clearly has no merit. The decision of the Commission is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
Carl Johnson, pro se appellant.
Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Melissa Wood, for appellee.