Cnty. of Henrico v. O'Neil, Record No. 0932-21-2
| Docket Number | Record No. 0932-21-2 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2022 |
| Citation | 75 Va.App. 312,876 S.E.2d 210 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF HENRICO and PMA Management Corporation, TPA v. Casie O'NEIL |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Brian J. McNamara (Scott C. Ford ; Ford Richardson, P.C., on brief), for appellants.
Casie O'Neil, pro se.
Present: Judges Huff, Lorish and Callins
OPINION BY JUDGE DOMINIQUE A. CALLINS
The County of Henrico and PMA Management Corporation, TPA (referred to collectively as "Henrico County") appeal a decision of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission ("the Commission") awarding Casie O'Neil benefits for injuries from an accident arising out of and in the course of her work. On appeal, Henrico County argues that the Commission erred by concluding that O'Neil’s claim for benefits was not barred by res judicata. Henrico County also contends that the Commission erred by refusing to permit the County to participate in oral argument in an unrelated case and that the Commission erred by finding that O'Neil’s injuries were causally related to her workplace accident. For the following reasons, we affirm the Commission's decision.
On March 24, 2017, O'Neil, a sheriff's deputy, attended a sheriff's training exercise. During the training, a lieutenant punched her near the throat, causing pain in her collarbone, neck, head, left arm, and ear. Immediately following the punch, O'Neil felt pain on her left side, she could not hear anything, and her jaw hurt. Her supervisors instructed her to go back to her workplace to fill out an incident report. She experienced more pain while driving, so she pulled over and her supervisor drove her to the emergency room where she was treated by C. Bruce Spiller, a nurse practitioner.
After the first visit, NP Spiller's physician's forms from March 24 to March 28 indicated that she had "left clavicle contusion/pain" and restricted O'Neil to "light duty" status. The forms also stated that O'Neil should not lift anything over five pounds and that she should avoid using her left arm. NP Spiller referred O'Neil to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Stephen Reese, who, on March 30, 2017, diagnosed her with a brachial plexus injury and sternoclavicular joint strain. Dr. Reese's notes recounted the training incident under the heading "onset."
Next, upon Dr. Reese's recommendation, O'Neil visited Anne Stuart, a physical therapist. Ms. Stuart's notes indicated that O'Neil suffered a brachial plexus and sternoclavicular injury after a hit to her throat and, in the same paragraph, stated, On April 11, 2017, O'Neil again visited Dr. Reese, who diagnosed her with a brachial plexus injury and radicular pain of her left upper extremity.
Then, around April 20, 2017, O'Neil’s doctors performed an MRI exam, which indicated "multilevel degenerative disc disease
in the spine" and led Dr. Reese to also diagnose O'Neil with "strain of muscle / fascia and tendon at neck level / subsequent encounter." Again, Dr. Reese referred to the training incident under the heading "onset." He also referred her to a pain specialist, who narrated the training incident under the heading "problem story" and who believed she "suffer[s] from a brachial plexopathy."
Around May 31, 2017, O'Neil underwent electrodiagnostic studies, which indicated a normal nerve exam. In the notes under "diagnosis," the attending physician noted "pain in left arm" and "hypoesthesia [numbness] of skin." The physician also noted that O'Neil’s pain was associated with a workplace injury from March 24, 2017. Around July 10, 2017, Dr. Reese approved O'Neil to return to full-duty work.
On October 31, 2017, O'Neil visited Dr. Anthony Julius, a neurologist. He diagnosed her with a brachial plexus injury, reactive cervical lymphadenopathy
, neuropathic pain, and otalgia of the left ear. Like the other doctors, Dr. Julius noted in the report that O'Neil’s pain began with the training incident. He also wrote, "I believe her pain is most consistent with an injury of the brachial plexus with neuralgia." He then referred her to an ear, nose, and throat specialist (ENT).
On November 15, 2017, O'Neil visited Dr. Wayne T. Shaia, an ENT, who noted the training incident and diagnosed her with "vertigo of central origin
," tinnitus, unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in her left ear, and left ear otalgia. On November 28, 2017, O'Neil returned to Dr. Shaia, who diagnosed her with "labyrinthine dysfunction" and "otalgia" in her left ear. She also underwent videonystagmography testing, which showed an abnormality in her left ear.
On April 20, 2017, O'Neil filed a "Claim for Benefits" with the Workers’ Compensation Commission, claiming injuries to her neck, collarbone, and upper left extremity. After her filing, the parties entered into a voluntary award agreement that provided temporary total disability due to "sternoclavicular joint strain." The Commission approved the agreement on June 20, 2017. An evidentiary hearing was never scheduled.
Beginning in February 2018, O'Neil filed three more claims requesting compensation for injuries related to the same incident. The first two claims were withdrawn without prejudice; the third claim is at issue here. This claim sought compensation for injuries sustained to her brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, left upper extremity, left ear, and mouth as part of the original March 24, 2017 accident and compensation for a brain injury
as a compensable consequence of the accident. A deputy commissioner held an evidentiary hearing on April 9, 2019, where O'Neil withdrew her claim for the brain injury. On October 21, 2019, the deputy commissioner entered an opinion denying O'Neil’s claims based on res judicata. The same day, O'Neil filed a request for review with the Commission.
On March 6, 2020, the Commission reversed the deputy commissioner's opinion and found that res judicata did not apply to O'Neil’s claims. The case was remanded to the deputy commissioner, who denied the claim because O'Neil failed to prove that any injuries to her brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, left arm, left ear, or mouth were directly related to the incident or a compensable consequence of that incident. On August 5, 2020, the full Commission partially reversed the deputy commissioner, finding that O'Neil sufficiently proved compensable injuries to her brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, and left arm, but affirming that she did not prove compensable injury to her left ear or mouth. This appeal timely followed.
On appeal, Henrico County contends that the Commission erred in hearing and deciding O'Neil’s claims for benefits. The County argues that O'Neil’s claims for benefits for injuries to her brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, and left arm are barred by the res judicata doctrine of claim preclusion. Henrico County also argues that it was denied the opportunity for oral argument in a different case the Commission determined to hear before rendering a decision in this case. It argues that O'Neil failed to prove the causal connection between the injuries to her brachial plexus, neck, collarbone, and left upper extremities and her workplace accident.
We first address Henrico County's contention that the principles of res judicata bar O'Neil’s claims for benefits for all injuries except those specifically resolved by the voluntary award agreement. The application of res judicata is a question of law we review de novo. Advance Auto & Indem. Ins. Co. v. Craft , 63 Va. App. 502, 514, 759 S.E.2d 17 (2014).
"[R]es judicata is a judicially created doctrine resting upon public policy considerations which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties." Id. at 514-15, 759 S.E.2d 17 (quoting K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber , 1 Va. App. 213, 219, 337 S.E.2d 299 (1985) ). "[T]he doctrine is firmly established in our jurisprudence and should be maintained where applicable." Thurber , 1 Va. App. at 219, 337 S.E.2d 299. It includes "[t]wo distinct concepts—issue preclusion and claim preclusion." Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation , 59 Va. App. 39, 45, 716 S.E.2d 485 (2011). Issue preclusion, also referred to as "collateral estoppel," precludes the same parties from re-litigating "any issue of fact actually litigated and essential to a valid and final personal judgment in the first action." Id. (quoting Rawlings v. Lopez , 267 Va. 4, 4-5, 591 S.E.2d 691 (2004) ). In contrast, claim preclusion precludes a party from continuing to litigate claims stemming from the same cause of action against the same party. See Bates v. Devers , 214 Va. 667, 670-71, 202 S.E.2d 917 (1974). Claim preclusion, also referred to as "merger" or "bar," "treats unasserted claims as being subsumed into the disposition of related, previously adjudicated, claims arising out of the same cause of action." Brock , 59 Va. App. at 45, 716 S.E.2d 485.1 "Claims precluded by res judicata include those ‘made or tendered by the pleadings,’ as well as those ‘incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation.’ " Id. at 46, 716 S.E.2d 485 (quoting Lofton Ridge , LLC v. Norfolk S. Ry. , 268 Va. 377, 381, 601 S.E.2d 648 (2004) ).
We have held that the principles of res judicata apply to workers’ compensation cases. See Rusty's Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson , 29 Va. App. 119, 128, 510 S.E.2d 255 (1999) (en banc); Craft , 63 Va. App. at 515, 759 S.E.2d 17. Yet we have also recognized that when res judicata conflicts with other public policy considerations, we must balance application of the doctrine against those other considerations. See Bates , 214 Va. at 670 n.2, 202 S.E.2d 917 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial