From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Angelo

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 13, 2012
81 Mass. App. Ct. 1142 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11–P–1626.

2012-06-13

Janine ANGELO'S CASE.


By the Court (KANTROWITZ, COHEN & MEADE, JJ.).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

In this workers' compensation action, Janine Angelo appeals from the dismissal of her claim for psychiatric damages she allegedly suffered as a result of a fall at her place of employment

that injured her physically. On her original claim before the Industrial Accident Board (board), an administrative judge ruled against her. That decision was affirmed by the reviewing board on the basis of res judicata. We agree that Angelo's claim was barred by res judicata and thus affirm the decision of the reviewing board.

Society of St. Vincent DePaul, a self-insurer through Massachusetts Catholic SIG.

In the original action, the administrative judge awarded Angelo benefits from the physical injuries she suffered from the accident. He found, however, that Angelo's psychiatric condition was not related to the underlying accident and denied her benefits under that claim. The reviewing board affirmed and, following the decision, rather than appeal, Angelo simply filed a new claim, submitting new materials, less than three weeks later, again seeking payment for her psychiatric treatment. After a hearing, the administrative judge determined that res judicata precluded Angelo's attempt to relitigate the issue whether her psychiatric disability was causally related to the industrial accident. The reviewing board affirmed. On appeal, Angelo argues that G.L. c. 152, § 16, prevents the insurer from relying on the doctrine of res judicata.

Discussion.General Laws c. 152, § 16, provides that when there is “a finding that the employee is entitled to compensation, no subsequent finding by a member or the reviewing board discontinuing compensation on the ground that the employee's incapacity has ceased shall be considered final as a matter of fact or res adjudicata as a matter of law and such employee ... may have further hearings as to whether his incapacity or death is or was the result of the injury for which he received compensation....” The statute is intended to limit an insurer's ability to raise res judicata as a defense if the board discontinues benefits and the employee suffers worsening symptoms due to the industrial injury. However, this section only applies if there has been a prior determination that the injury was caused by the industrial accident.

Here, the administrative judge held that the statute did not apply because there was no prior finding that Angelo was entitled to compensation for the psychiatric injury as the injury was not causally related to her work. During the first action, the administrative judge allowed Angelo to submit medical evidence on the psychiatric claim without limitation. She submitted medical records and an evaluation by a psychologist who opined that the employee's psychiatric condition was causally related to the industrial accident. The administrative judge rejected that opinion, relying on the IME report of Dr. Michael Rater which concluded that there was no casual relationship, and found that although Angelo had significant psychiatric diagnoses, her condition was not work related. He explicitly found that there was no correlation between the accident and Angelo's psychological problems and therefore she was not entitled to benefits for them.

As a result, res judicata bars Angelo from bringing the same claim for a second time. See Martin v. Ring, 401 Mass. 59, 62–63, (1987) (collateral estoppel can bar relitigation of issues in workers' compensation cases when they have already been adjudicated). Angelo's own submissions to the administrative judge in her second action make it clear that the psychological injury claimed is the same. Even if Angelo's symptoms had worsened and the description of her diagnoses had changed, the injury had already been determined as not causally related to her work.

As for Angelo's assertion that because there was a prior determination establishing liability for the physical injury, she could bring a new claim for a psychological injury arising from the original physical injury, this too is without merit, as it ignores the administrative judge's finding that the second claim was “not a new condition, but a continuum of the same psychiatric condition and a continuum of treatment that stretches back to that which was fully considered at the last hearing.”

For these reasons, as well as for substantially those in the brief of the insurer-appellee, Massachusetts Catholic SIG, the board's decision below is affirmed.

Decision of reviewing board affirmed.


Summaries of

In re Angelo

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 13, 2012
81 Mass. App. Ct. 1142 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Case details for

In re Angelo

Case Details

Full title:Janine ANGELO'S CASE.

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Date published: Jun 13, 2012

Citations

81 Mass. App. Ct. 1142 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
968 N.E.2d 942