 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
VAN HOUTEN v. HARCO CONST.2/27/1995
issue, nor is a Massachusetts decision res
judicata on that issue. Additionally, res judicata is also
inapplicable because the parties in the Massachusetts Decision
are dissimilar to the parties before the Board.
Van Houten's motion for findings of fact was denied in June 1994. We granted Van Houten's petition for review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp. 1994).
Van Houten contends that collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of issues of fact decided by the Massachusetts administrative court and therefore it was error for the Board to independently determine that he did not suffer a work-related
We have held that " he purpose of collateral estoppel is to prevent harassing and repetitious litigation, to avoid inconsistent holdings which lead to further litigation, and to give sanctity and finality to judgments." Hossler v. Barry, 403 A.2d 762, 767 (Me. 1979). Consistent with this policy, we have previously stated that collateral estoppel applies to factual determinations made in connection with an employee's claim pursuant to the Act. Crawford v. Allied Container Corp., 561 A.2d 1027, 1028-29 (Me. 1989); see generally 3A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 79.72 (1993); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 81 (1982). See also Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 280-81, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2661, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980) ("To be sure, . . . the factfindings of state administrative tribunals are entitled to the same res judicata effect in the second State as findings by a court"); Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 3225, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986). In general, we permit the use of offensive collateral estoppel "on a case-by-case basis if it serves the interests of justice" and we "require that the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and that the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding." Mutual Fire Ins. v. Richardson, 640 A.2d 205, 208 (Me. 1994) (quoting State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bragg, 589 A.2d 35, 37 (Me. 1991)).
Harco contends that it should not be estopped in the present proceeding from litigating the nature of Van Houten's work injury because it was not a party or a privy to a party in the Massachusetts proceeding. We disagree. The parties, inter alia, stipulated in the consent decrees that, at the time of injury, Harco and Harnum had identical ownership and management and that both were insured by the same workers' compensation policy. The only difference between the two corporations suggested in the record is that Harnum employs union workers and Harco does not. Based on the consent decrees, Van Houten has established a sufficient identity of ownership, control and interest in the proceeding to meet his burden of privity for the purposes of collateral estoppel. Spickler v. Dube, 644 A.2d 465, 468 (Me. 1994); Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Town of Mount Desert, 618 A.2d 225, 227 (Me. 1992); Spickler v. Flynn, 494 A.2d 1369, 1373 (Me. 1985).
As the party resisting collateral estoppel, Harco bears the burden of establishing
the size of the claim, . . . the forum of the prior litigation,
. . . whether the issue was a factual or a legal one, . . . the
foreseeability of future suits, . . . the extent of the
previous litigation, . . . the availability of new evidence, .
. . the experience of counsel, . . . indications of a
compromise verdict, . . . procedural opportunities available in
the second suit that were unavailable in the first.
Id. (citations omitted). Here, Harco failed to meet its burden of establishing that it was prejudiced in the Massachusetts proceeding. Because Harco sti
Page 1 2 3 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|