County of Henrico v. O’Neil, Record No. 0932-21-2, 75 Va. App. 312 (August 2, 2022)
Facts. Casie O’Neil was injured when she was punched in the neck during a sheriff’s training exercise. She was initially diagnosed with a left clavicle contusion.
Over the course of several medical appointments with several different doctors, she was diagnosed with a host of other problems relating to her left neck, arm, shoulder, and ear. In 2017, O’Neil filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission, claiming injuries to her neck, collarbone, and upper left extremity. Later that year, before an evidentiary hearing was scheduled, she entered into a voluntary award agreement for disability due to “sternoclavicular joint strain.” Beginning in 2018, O’Neil filed three more claims for injuries related to the same incident. The third was for injuries sustained to her brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, left upper extremity, left ear, and mouth.
A deputy commissioner held an evidentiary hearing on this claim and denied it based on res judicata. O’Neil appealed, but her counsel asked the Commission to withhold its judgment until oral argument on an unrelated second case that he was involved in as it concerned the same res judicata issue. Her counsel also proposed that Henrico be able to argue in the second case. The Commission agreed to wait to hear the second case to rule but did not allow argument from Henrico in that case. After argument on both cases, the Commission reversed the deputy commissioner and remanded.
This time, the deputy commissioner denied the claim because O’Neil failed to prove that these injuries were directly related to the training incident. The Commission partially reversed, finding that she had not proved that the injury to her left ear or mouth were compensable. Only the County appealed.
Issues. (1) Whether res judicata bars a claimant who accepts an award agreement before an evidentiary hearing from filing later claims for additional injuries arising from the same incident. (2) Whether Henrico’s due process rights were violated when it was not allowed to give oral argument in the unrelated second case concerning the same issues as O’Neil’s case. (3) Whether expert medical testimony was required to relate O’Neil’s brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, and left upper extremity injuries to the incident.
Holdings. (1) Simply filing a claim and signing an award agreement for some injuries before an evidentiary hearing does not trigger res judicata unless a claimant otherwise knowingly and intentionally waives their rights for claims not addressed by the agreement. (2) Henrico’s due process rights were not violated because it had the opportunity to be heard in the case in which it was a party. (3) Where medical reports do not purport to establish the cause of a claimant’s injury, the Commission may establish causation through the claimant’s testimony.
Notes. (1) Principles of res judicata apply to workers’ compensation cases, but when they conflict with other public policy considerations, courts must balance the competing interests. The Workers’ Compensation Act was enacted for humanitarian purposes and is therefore liberally construed. So, application of res judicata to workers’ compensation claims is limited to two scenarios. The first is a final judgment after a party has pursued and submitted a claim at an evidentiary hearing. The second is when a claim is waived or abandoned.
A claimant abandons a claim when they proceed to an evidentiary hearing and fail to present evidence for all injuries asserted in their claim for benefits, or when they represent to the Commission that an award agreement encompasses all their injury claims. A claim can only be waived when there is “clear, precise and unequivocal evidence” that the claimant intends to surrender a known right. Here, O’Neil merely filed a claim alleging some injuries, then signed an award agreement. The Commission never considered these initial injuries in an evidentiary hearing. O’Neil had not presented all her injuries to the Commission in her initial claim and never represented that her award agreement resolved all her injury claims, therefore her current claim was not barred.
(2) There is no authority that gives a person the right to present oral argument at a case in which their only interest is the development of the law. Henrico presented arguments and filed briefs in connection with O’Neil’s case—the only case in which it was a party—and this was sufficient to meet due process standards. (3) O’Neil’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing established that her pain began after the training incident, and that she experienced pain in her jaw, left arm, collarbone, and neck. There is a logical causal connection between a punch in the neck and immediate pain in surrounding body areas. O’Neil did not testify to any intervening causes or complications, therefore the link between her injuries and the training incident were “not only logical” but “obvious.”
Read the Opinion.