Source: https://mn.gov/workcomp-stat/2018/Johnson%20v%20A%20Touch%20of%20Class%20Painting-07-23-18.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:36:27+00:00

Document:
Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, Inc.
CLARENCE JOHNSON, Employee/Petitioner, v. A TOUCH OF CLASS PAINTING, INC. and STATE FARM GROUP, Employer-Insurer/Respondent, and CENTRAL MED. CLINIC, LLC, FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSP./INST. FOR ATHLETIC MED., MINNEAPOLIS SURGICAL CTR., MINN. DEP’T OF LABOR AND INDUS./VRU, MINNEAPOLIS CLINIC OF NEUROLOGY, PREFERRED ONE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVS./INGENIX, TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS, P.A., Intervenors.
EVIDENCE – RES JUDICATA. Res judicata applies to bar an employee from petitioning to vacate an award based on claims raised in prior litigation.
Attorneys: Pro Se Petitioner, Richfield, Minnesota. Christopher E. Celichowski, O’Meara, Leer, Wagner, Kohl, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondent.
Clarence Johnson petitions to vacate an award served and filed September 19, 2006. We find the petition to be barred by res judicata and the petition is denied.
Clarence Johnson (petitioner) performed work activities for A Touch of Class Painting (respondent) in late 2003. Petitioner filed a claim petition in September 2005, alleging he was an employee of respondent, had sustained Gillette injuries in October and November 2003 to both shoulders, and was entitled to various workers’ compensation benefits. Respondent denied petitioner was an employee and denied liability for the claimed injuries.
The parties entered into a stipulation for settlement that was the subject of an award served and filed on September 19, 2006. Petitioner was then represented by an attorney and claimed in the stipulation that he was an employee of respondent, that he was entitled to wage loss benefits, permanent partial disability, medical benefits, rehabilitation services, and penalties. Respondent denied these claims. In the stipulation, the petitioner settled all claims for workers’ compensation benefits of any type on a full, final and complete basis. The petitioner was paid $6,000.00, less attorney’s fees, and intervention claims were resolved as well.
Petitioner filed a petition to vacate the 2006 settlement on October 17, 2007. He filed an amendment to his petition on October 24, 2007, followed by letter on December 24, 2007, and January 8, 2008. Respondent filed a memorandum objecting to the petition. This court denied the petition to vacate. Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, WC08-113 (W.C.C.A. Mar. 31, 2008).
Petitioner filed a claim petition against respondent in May 2009, alleging a work injury on October 6, 2003, and entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The claim petition was dismissed by a compensation judge and petitioner appealed the dismissal to this court. We dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner had failed to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 4. Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, 69 W.C.D. 386 (W.C.C.A. 2009).
Petitioner filed another claim petition against respondent in April 2012, alleging injuries to his shoulders on October 15 and November 13, 2013, and claiming entitlement to various workers’ compensation benefits. Petitioner attached the 2006 stipulation to his claim petition as support for his claim. A compensation judge dismissed the claim petition on a motion by the respondent. Petitioner appealed to this court. We found that the arguments raised by the petitioner had been considered and determined in the petitioner’s previous appearances. This court determined that the petitioner’s claims were barred by res judicata and affirmed the dismissal of the claim petition. Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, 72 W.C.D. 723 (W.C.C.A. 2012).
Petitioner filed a new petition to vacate the 2006 settlement in October 2014. This court found that the claims and arguments of the petitioner in this new petition had been considered in 2008 and 2012. We held that res judicata barred reconsideration of the same claims and the same evidence in a new proceeding. The petition was denied. Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, 75 W.C.D. 439 (W.C.C.A. 2015).
Petitioner has filed his most recent petition to vacate on April 27, 2018.
In his petition, affidavit, and supporting documents, petitioner makes a number of claims in support of his petition to vacate. He alleges penalties were owed because of the employer’s frivolous denial of primary liability, inexcusable delay in making payments, and intentional underpayment of benefits. The petitioner also alleges fraud but provides no specific information as to this claim. The employee further claims that his shoulder surgery in 2008 constituted a change in medical condition. He concludes by stating Minn. Stat. § 176.461 is unconstitutional in that it does not protect the injured worker.
All of the information supplied by the petitioner in his exhibits, except for two medical chart notes from 2008, predate the settlement. In other words, all of the alleged misdeeds of the employer were well known to the petitioner and his former attorney at the time of the settlement. All of those arguments were considered and determined by this court in its decisions in 2008, 2012, and 2015. The 2008 chart notes indicating that shoulder surgery was performed was considered by the court in our 2015 decision.
In 2012, we concluded the employee’s appeal of the order dismissing his claim petition was barred by res judicata. In 2015, we concluded the employee’s petition to vacate was barred by res judicata. We reach the same conclusion with regard to the present petition.
“Principles of res judicata otherwise bar subsequent proceedings which were litigated in a prior proceeding.” Alexander v. Kenneth P. LaLonde Enters., 288 N.W.2d 18, 20, 31 W.C.D. 407, 410 (Minn. 1980). The petitioner’s petition to vacate the 2006 settlement and award is denied.
Respondents request that this court order sanctions against the petitioner under Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 12. Respondents point out that they have incurred “unneeded legal expense with each petition to vacate and appeal filed by Petitioner.” We are reluctant to impose sanctions on a party appearing pro se and we decline to do so at this time. The petitioner should be aware; however, that consequences such as sanctions may be imposed in the future should petitions be filed with this court making the same arguments presented with the same evidence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 176
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 176
 v. 
 § 176