Opinion
No. C5-94-845,
Filed October 18, 1994.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 9319282.
Steven D. Emmings, John W. Carey, Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum, McCoy Carey, Ltd. for appellant.
Bradley T. Cosgriff, La Bore Giuliani, Ltd., for respondent.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Eileen Hornamen contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the grounds that an arbitrator's general denial of no-fault insurance benefits collaterally estopped appellant from pursuing a subsequent arbitration regarding additional no-fault benefits. We reverse.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, the reviewing court must determine (1) if there are any genuine issues of material fact, and (2) if the lower court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.Lamont v. Minnesota Dep't of Emp. Rel., 495 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Minn.App. 1993). Determining whether collateral estoppel is available is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review. In re Trusts Created by Hormel, 504 N.W.2d 505, 509 (Minn.App. 1993), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993).
One of the requirements for applying collateral estoppel is that the currently disputed issue be identical to the issue in a prior adjudication. Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, 452 N.W.2d 648, 650 (Minn. 1990). The doctrine only applies to issues that "were actually litigated and determined by, and essential to, a previous judgment." Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Minn. 1978). If
the judgment might have been based upon one or more of several grounds, but does not expressly rely upon any one of them, then none of them is conclusively established under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, since it is impossible for another court to tell which issue or issues were adjudged by the rendering court.
Id. at 808 (citation omitted); see In re Trust Created by Hill, 499 N.W.2d 475, 485 (Minn.App. 1993) , pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 1993) (collateral estoppel inapplicable when the issue was not unequivocally decided).
In the present case, the arbitrator's decision to deny medical expense and wage loss benefits could have been based upon one or more of several grounds. Medical expenses could have been denied because they were found to be unreasonable, or unnecessary, or not causally related to the accident. Similarly, wage loss benefits could have been denied because the arbitrator felt appellant was able to work, or because her injuries were not caused by the accident. Each of these grounds was disputed by the parties, but not all of them were necessarily determined by and essential to the arbitrator's general denial. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding that the arbitrator necessarily found a lack of causation.
Because the arbitrator did not specify the grounds for his denial, it is impossible for a reviewing court to assess which issues were unequivocally decided. On these facts and on this record, the doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot be applied.