NY Court Says Collateral Estoppel Bars Injured Worker’s Subsequent Negligence Action Against Defendants
A New York appellate court affirmed a decision by a state trial court that granted defendants summary judgment in a negligence action filed against them related to the alleged malfunction of a hoist elevator at a construction site on the grounds that the essential issues had already been determined against the plaintiff in an earlier workers’ compensation proceeding [Lennon v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5109 (2d Dept. Sept. 15, 2021)]. The appellate court acknowledged that collateral estoppel/issue preclusion would not bar a claim where the issue at stake was different at the workers’ compensation level. It noted multiple prior decisions in which collateral estoppel had been determined not to apply to a subsequent negligence action filed by an injured worker. It stressed that here, however, the WCLJ in the earlier workers’ compensation proceeding had determined that the incident, which the plaintiff alleged was caused by the defendants’ negligence, actually had not occurred.
Background
Plaintiff initially sought workers’ compensation benefits for an injury to his knees that he allegedly sustained during a July 2014 incident at a construction site in Manhattan. In relevant part, he contended the injuries occurred when the hoist elevator on which he was riding made multiple and sudden unanticipated rises and drops.
At a workers’ compensation hearing, at which he was represented by counsel, plaintiff testified that although others were on the hoist elevator at the time it malfunctioned, he could not recall any of their names. In contrast, the general superintendent of the hoist company testified that safety features that were in place would have prevented the accident from occurring in the mechanical way described by the plaintiff. Moreover, the safety features would have prompted a regulatory 45-minute evaluation and re-set of the equipment after any such event, and required the generation of an incident report, none of which occurred on the date in question.
In a December 2014 decision, the WCLJ denied the plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the WCLJ did “not believe that the hoist elevator malfunctioned in any way, much less in the drastic and dramatic way described by [the plaintiff].” The law judge noted from the plaintiff’s testimony his inconsistent descriptions of the event itself, the injuries attributed to it, and the failure of the plaintiff’s initial treating physician to find from imaging scans one week after the occurrence any knee condition other than degenerative changes. The law judge concluded the “claim to be, at best, an afterthought.”
Civil Action: Collateral Estoppel?
The plaintiff then commenced the instant civil action against multiple parties, including owner of the building and the hoist company. Eventually, the defendants were allowed to amend their Answer to include a defense of collateral estoppel. They argued that the WCLJ’s determination, as affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, that the underlying event was not causally related to the claim, collaterally estopped the plaintiff from re-asserting the same claim before the Supreme Court. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff’s amended complaint and the plaintiff appealed.
Collateral Estoppel/Issue Preclusion
The appellate court acknowledged a number of reported decisions in which New York courts had determined that a personal injury action was not collaterally estopped by a prior workers’ compensation determination. Often, noted the court, the issues at stake in the workers’ compensation proceeding differed from those in a subsequent negligence action.
The appellate court said that here, the defendants met their burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The WCLJ’s findings, as affirmed by Board, established as a matter of fact that the accident claimed by the plaintiff did not occur, or did not occur in the described manner as would cause injury. The court stressed that such a finding was material and, in fact, pivotal, to the core viability of any personal injury action that the plaintiff could pursue in a court at law regarding the same incident. Without an injury-producing occurrence, the appellate court said that the trial court need not reach whether the hoist elevator at the construction site had malfunctioned in any way, or whether any such malfunction qualified as a violation of any provision of the Labor Law, or the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. The court continued, “The non-occurrence of an injury-producing accident is a dagger in the heart of the plaintiff’s entire personal injury action in the Supreme Court” [Opinion, p. 21].