Beegan v. Schmidt

• Decision Date: 21 October 1982
• Parties: Beatrice M. BEEGAN v. James L. SCHMIDT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 642

451 A.2d 642

Beatrice M. BEEGAN v. James L. SCHMIDT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Sept. 22, 1982.

Decided Oct. 21, 1982.

Mark S. Kierstead (orally), Waterville, for plaintiff.

Preti, Flaherty & Beliveau, John P. Doyle, Jr. (orally), John J. Flaherty, Christopher J. Nyhan, Portland, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and GODFREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS, CARTER and VIOLETTE, JJ.

McKUSICK, Chief Justice.

This case comes to the Law Court on appeal from an order of the Superior Court (Kennebec County) dismissing plaintiff Beatrice M. Beegan's suit for breach of express contract against her former dentist, James L. Schmidt. The Superior Court dismissed Beegan's present lawsuit after Dr. Schmidt argued that it was barred by a judgment entered against Beegan in an earlier case she had brought against the same defendant, charging him with negligence and breach of implied contract. We hold that the Superior Court correctly applied the principle of res judicata; and consequently we affirm its dismissal of this second action brought by Beegan against Dr. Schmidt.

In September, 1980, Beegan initiated a civil action in the Superior Court (Kennebec County) against Dr. Schmidt, a dentist practicing in Augusta. Her complaint was in four counts, each of them asking for damages of $70,000 plus interest and costs. Each count alleged the following facts: Beegan "placed herself under the care of the defendant" in the spring of 1975 and employed him "to do any and all things that were required to treat plaintiff's condition and necessary to the maintenance of good dental health in the plaintiff's mouth." Schmidt agreed to do all things necessary for plaintiff's dental health. Schmidt treated Beegan through "the late fall of 1976," but failed to diagnose her various dental diseases, including "severe dental decay [and] gum deterioration." Because of Schmidt's failure to diagnose those problems, Beegan required "extensive dental surgery and treatment" and suffered "permanent impairment and loss of teeth, great pain and suffering of body and mind, dental, periodontal, medical, and drug expenses, loss of time, and other expenses."

Counts I and II of the 1980 complaint alleged that Schmidt had been negligent in failing to diagnose and treat Beegan properly in that he had failed to use the care and skill ordinarily exercised by other local dentists in like circumstances. Counts III and IV alleged that Schmidt had "impliedly warranted" to diagnose and treat Beegan's dental condition with ordinary care and skill, and that he had violated that implied warranty.

The Superior Court dismissed Beegan's case because she had failed to file her complaint within the two-year limitations period prescribed by the legislature for "malpractice" actions. 14 M.R.S.A. § 753 (1980). The Law Court affirmed on November 9, 1981, holding that "[b]oth the claims in negligence and those in implied contract are controlled by the two-year statute of limitations." Beegan v. Schmidt, Me., 436 A.2d 893, 894 (1981) (memorandum of decision).

Undaunted, Beegan filed a new complaint against dentist Schmidt later in the same month of November, 1981. The 1981 complaint contains the following allegations in two separate counts: On May 7, 1975, Beegan and Schmidt entered into an express contract providing that Schmidt "would repair molars and bicuspids, for the purpose of restoring those specified teeth to a condition whereby root canal work on said teeth would not be required," and that Beegan would pay Schmidt $33 per hour for his services. Schmidt worked on Beegan's teeth through January, 1976. In late 1977 and early 1978, Beegan experienced pain and headaches, consulted other dental practitioners, and discovered that Schmidt had failed to repair the molars and bicuspids which he had undertaken to restore. She then was forced to undergo additional treatment, including root canal surgery, to "restore her mouth to the condition in which it would have been had the defendant performed his contract with the plaintiff." This additional treatment cost Beegan $17,000.

Count I prays for "reasonable" damages. County II further alleges that Beegan engaged Schmidt on January 17, 1976, "for the specific purpose of determining whether or not dental problems were causing her extreme headaches and pain in her neck and head," that Beegan and Schmidt entered into a second express contract whereby Beegan would pay the dentist $30 and he would examine her to determine whether her pain was due to any dental decay, and that Schmidt collected his fee but reported to Beegan that he could find no dental conditions capable of causing the pain she had reported. Count II goes on to allege that Beegan later discovered that decay in the very molars and bicuspids Schmidt had originally agreed to treat was responsible for her pain, and that the pain ultimately forced her not only to have root canal surgery but also to leave her employment, to use prescription painkillers, and to seek psychological and medical treatment. Count II lists Beegan's damages as $17,000 for medical, dental, and psychiatric expenses and $40,000 for loss of wages.

Defendant Schmidt moved to dismiss the 1981 complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred as res judicata by the final judgment in the 1980 suit between the same two parties. The Superior Court granted Schmidt's motion and dismissed the case without opinion.

The doctrine of res judicata--literally, "thing adjudged"--is a court-made collection of rules designed to ensure that the same matter will not be litigated more than once. Today's case involves the branch of res judicata usually called "bar." Unlike the related rule of collateral estoppel or "issue preclusion," which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case, ¹ the doctrine of bar, or "claim preclusion," prohibits relitigation of an entire "cause of action" between the same parties or their privies, once a valid final judgment has been rendered in an earlier suit on the same cause of action.

If a plaintiff brings an action which proceeds to final judgment, his "cause of action" is said to be "merged" in the judgment if he wins and "barred" by it if he loses. This means that what was considered or should have been considered in the first action cannot form the basis of a subsequent action.

Note, Developments in the Law--Res Judicata, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 820, 824 (1952). The case now before us presents the question whether the judgment entered against Beegan in her first action against Schmidt bars her from bringing this second case.

In Kradoska v. Kipp, Me., 397 A.2d 562, 565 (1979), we summarized the doctrine of bar as it has evolved in this state. The rule, we said,

has been applied chiefly in the interests of judicial economy to bar relitigation of a cause of action that has already been resolved by a valid prior judgment; the scope of the bar extends to all issues "tried or that might have been tried" in the prior action. Bray v. Spencer, 146 Me. 416, 418, 82 A.2d 794, 795 (1951).... In order for the doctrine to be applied, the court must satisfy itself that 1) the same parties, or their privies, are involved; 2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and 3) the matters presented for decision were, or might have been, litigated in the prior action.

The case now before us easily satisfies the three conditions set forth in Kradoska. First, the same two parties are involved in this case as in the earlier action. Second, a dismissal for failure to come within an applicable statute of limitations is a "valid final judgment" for res judicata purposes. ² Third, the issues presented for decision in the instant case could have been presented and decided in the prior action. It is true that the 1981 complaint contains factual allegations not made in 1980, allegations as to the formation and terms of two express contracts allegedly entered into by Dr. Schmidt with Beegan. But by their nature those facts must have been known to Beegan when she filed her 1980 complaint, and therefore her breach of contract claims could have been presented for decision at that time. Similarly, although the legal theory underlying both counts of the 1981 complaint, breach of express contract, differs from the theories relied upon in the 1980 complaint, it was hardly an unknown principle in 1980 and it could equally well have been relied upon in Beegan's original complaint. See Woolley v. Henderson, Me., 418 A.2d 1123, 1135 (1980); Miller v. Dore, 154 Me. 363, 148 A.2d 692 (1959). ³ Nor would the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure have prevented Beegan from incorporating the 1981 allegations and theory of recovery into her 1980 complaint. See M.R.Civ.P. 18(a). Beegan thus could easily have presented for decision in 1980 all of the issues she seeks to litigate by her 1981 complaint.

These conclusions do not end our inquiry, however; in a sense they are mere preliminaries to the issue at the heart of the present case. We have stated that Beegan could have incorporated all of the factual allegations and legal grounds for relief asserted in her 1981 complaint back in 1980. Still to be decided is whether she should have done so; whether her failure to assert those matters in 1980 precludes her from litigating them now. To put it another way, the key question here is whether Beegan's 1981 complaint presents the same "cause of action" that was presented and disposed of in her 1980 action. "The major problem raised by the principle of merger or bar is how much of what could have been considered in the first action, but was not, is also merged or barred--in other words, to what extent a party's present grievances were part of the 'cause of action' already sued on." Note, supra, 65 Harv.L.Rev. at 824.

We have acknowledged in an earlier case that "the slippery phrase 'cause of action' all but defies definition." Krado...