Opinion
J-A27007-16 No. 571 EDA 2016
03-20-2017
ISIAH BOYD AND ALISHA BOYD Appellees v. ACCURATE TRASH REMOVAL AND ACCURATE RECYCLING CORPORATION AND ACCURATE WASTE SERVICES AND ACCURATE METALS AND WILLIAM CORBITT Appellants
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): Case ID 140701861, July Term, 2014, No. 01861 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Accurate Trash Removal, Accurate Recycling Corporation, Accurate Waste Services, Accurate Metals and William Corbitt (collectively, "Accurate"), appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following the entry of a jury verdict in favor of Appellees, Isiah and Alisha Boyd (collectively, "Boyds"), for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Upon review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings in accordance herewith.
On July 31, 2012, Isiah Boyd was working as a SEPTA bus driver when his vehicle was struck head-on by an Accurate trash truck. Boyd suffered head, neck and lower back injuries. Boyd filed a workers' compensation claim against SEPTA, claiming to have been totally disabled as of the date of the accident. The workers' compensation judge ("WCJ") ultimately determined that Boyd had suffered injury to his head and neck, which resulted in post-concussion syndrome, neck sprain, and cervical headache. The WCJ found that Boyd was totally disabled as a result of the accident, but only through the date of October 25, 2012, at which time the WCJ concluded Boyd had fully recovered from his injuries.
On July 17, 2014, Boyd and his wife, Alisha, filed a complaint against Accurate, seeking damages for the injuries sustained by Boyd and loss of consortium damages on behalf of Alisha. On February 3, 2015, Accurate filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to preclude the Boyds from recovering damages for injuries beyond those found by the WCJ, based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The motion was denied and the matter set for trial in October 2015.
Prior to trial, on September 15, 2015, Accurate filed a motion in limine, seeking to preclude Boyd from presenting any evidence of, or being awarded any damages for, injuries existing after October 25, 2012, also based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The motion was denied. Accurate also requested a jury instruction, based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, limiting the Boyds' recovery to damages allegedly sustained prior to October 25, 2012. The trial court denied this instruction.
Trial commenced on October 6, 2015, during which the Boyds and their medical expert were allowed to testify as to injuries and complaints experienced after October 25, 2012. On October 8, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Isiah Boyd in the amount of $700,000 and for Alisha Boyd in the amount of $50,000. On October 13, 2015, the Boyds filed a motion for delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238(c). On October 16, 2015, Accurate filed post-trial motions, requesting that the court reconsider its prior rulings regarding the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. By orders dated December 29, 2015, the trial court denied Accurate's motion for post-trial relief and granted the Boyds' motion for delay damages in favor of both Isiah and Alisha Boyd. Pursuant to a praecipe filed by the Boyds, judgment was entered on the docket on January 12, 2016.
This timely appeal follows, in which Accurate raises the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred by denying [Accurate's] [m]otion for [p]artial [s]ummary [j]udgment[,] which sought to limit the nature and scope of [the Boyds'] injuries and recoverable damages pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel based upon the prior decision entered by [the WCJ] on April 7, 2014[,] in [Isiah Boyd's] workers' compensation proceeding[,] at which time it was judicially determined that [Isiah Boyd] had fully recovered from his injuries by October 25, 2012.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying [Accurate's] [m]otion in [l]imine to [p]reclude [c]ertain [t]estimony and [c]ertain [m]edical [r]eports which, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, sought to limit [the Boyds'] argument, testimony and evidence regarding their alleged injuries and damages insofar as the prior decision by [the WCJ] in [Isiah Boyd's] workers' compensation proceeding judicially determined that [Isiah Boyd] had fully recovered from his injuries by October 25, 2012.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying [Accurate's] requested jury instruction which sought to limit [the Boyds'] recoverable damages in this matter based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel insofar as the prior decision by [the WCJ] on April 7, 2014[,] in [Isiah Boyd's] workers' compensation proceeding judicially determined that [Isiah Boyd] had fully recovered from his injuries by October 25, 2012.
4. Whether the trial court erred by granting [the Boyds'] [m]otion for [d]elay [d]amages when the verdict upon which such damages were calculated was based upon argument, evidence and testimony which should not have been permitted insofar as the prior ruling of [the WCJ] in [Isiah Boyd's] workers' compensation proceeding judicially determined that [Isiah Boyd] had fully recovered by October 25, 2012[,] and, therefore, should have collaterally estopped [the Boyds] from relitigating the issue of [Isiah Boyd's] injuries.
5. Whether the trial court erred by granting [Alisha Boyd's] [m]otion for [d]elay [d]amages insofar as delay damages under Pa.R.C.P. 238 are not recoverable for loss of consortium claims.
6. Whether the trial court erred in denying [Accurate's] [m]otion for [p]ost-[t]rial [r]elief and request for new trial insofar as the verdict was based upon argument, evidence and testimony which should not have been permitted insofar as the prior ruling of [the WCJ] in [Isiah Boyd's] workers' compensation proceeding judicially determined that [Isiah Boyd] had fully recovered by October 25, 2012[,] and, therefore, should have collaterally estopped [the Boyds] from relitigating the issue of [Isiah Boyd's] injuries.
7. Whether the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of [the Boyds] and against [Accurate] when the verdict was based upon argument, evidence and testimony which should not have been permitted insofar as the prior ruling of [the WCJ] in [Isiah
Boyd's] workers' compensation proceeding judicially determined that [Isiah Boyd] had fully recovered by October 25, 2012[,] and, therefore, should have collaterally estopped [the Boyds] from relitigating the issue of [Isiah Boyd's] injuries.Brief of Appellants, at 8-10.
Six of Accurate's seven appellate issues are grounded in its claim that the trial court erred in holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to bar evidence, argument, and testimony regarding injuries and damages alleged to have been sustained by the Boyds after October 25, 2012, the date the WCJ determined that Isiah Boyd had fully recovered from his injuries.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue determined in a previous action if: (1) the issue decided in the prior case is identical to the one presented in the later action; (2) there was a final adjudication on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case; (4) the party or person privy to the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding; and (5) the determination in the prior proceeding was essential to the judgment. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiesewetter , 889 A.2d 47, 50-51 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted). Collateral estoppel relieves parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourages reliance on adjudication. Id.
In her opinion, the Honorable Ellen Ceisler correctly concludes that, because of the specific statutory framework within which workers' compensation cases are adjudicated, a determination by a WCJ that a claimant is not "disabled" as of a certain date does not preclude recovery, in a civil tort action, for non-economic damages stemming from the same injury. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/13/16, at 6-8. Because Judge Ceisler's opinion thoroughly and correctly disposes of this issue, we affirm her rulings as to Accurate's appellate issues numbered 1-4 and 6-7 on the basis of her well-reasoned opinion.
Finally, Accurate asserts that the trial court erred in awarding delay damages to Alisha Boyd, as such damages are only available with regard to claims "seeking monetary relief for bodily injury, death or property damage." Pa.R.C.P. 238(a). As to this claim, Accurate is correct and Judge Ceisler concedes as much in her opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/13/16, at 8, citing Anchorstar v. Mack Trucks , Inc., 620 A.2d 1120, 1121 (Pa. 1993) (under clear and express language of Rule 238, delay damages are not applicable to claim of loss of consortium). Accordingly, we reverse the award of delay damages to Alisha Boyd and remand for the purpose of permitting the trial court to modify its order accordingly.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the dictates of this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/20/2017
Image materials not available for display.