Opinion ID: 2626647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Issue 7: Applying collateral estoppel to claims involving cervical injuries

Text: [¶ 46] After his accident at the Caballo Mine, Mr. Cramer filed a worker's compensation claim to recover medical costs associated with his injuries. The Workers' Safety & Compensation Division allowed the claims for the injuries to his foot and knee, but denied his claim for neck injuries on the basis that Mr. Cramer failed to prove that it was caused by or related to his workplace accident. On appeal, we affirmed that decision. Cramer, 120 P.3d 668. [¶ 47] In his suit against PRC, Mr. Cramer included claims for damages relating to his neck injury. PRC moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that the claims relating to his neck injury were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The district court granted PRC's motion for partial summary judgment, and Mr. Cramer appeals. [¶ 48] On appeal, PRC contends that the issue is moot. Because the jury found against Mr. Cramer on the issue of liability, PRC maintains, it never reached the question of damages. It does not matter, then, if evidence about damages from the neck injury was excluded. We agree. The jury found that PRC was not liable for any of Mr. Cramer's damages, and therefore, any issue relating solely to damages is moot. McGuire v. Solis, 2005 WY 129, ¶ 8, 120 P.3d 1020, 1023 (Wyo.2005). [¶ 49] Mr. Cramer claims that the issue is not moot, however, because the jury clearly knew that Mr. Cramer was not telling the whole story about what happened with the cervical spine, and that could only have had a negative impact on the jury's view of his credibility. In support of this position, Mr. Cramer cites two portions of the record. The first is from pretrial proceedings in which the district court decided to instruct the jury that it may hear evidence related to a cervical spine condition suffered by the plaintiff, but that this condition is unrelated to the incident in which the plaintiff was involved on October 18, 2002, at the Caballo Mine. This proceeding was held outside of the jury's presence, and Mr. Cramer has not explained how it might have affected the jury's perception of his credibility. [¶ 50] The second portion of the record is from the trial transcript of PRC's cross examination of Mr. Cramer. Counsel for PRC questioned him to clarify that he took medication in 2005 because of his neck condition, and that he had not worked during 2005 because he was concerned about his neck condition. Mr. Cramer suggests that this was a general attack on his credibility, but that is not reflected in the record. Mr. Cramer provides no further explanation of how the cross examination about his neck condition had an impact on the jury's perception of his overall credibility. Unable to perceive how the district court's limitation on evidence relating to his neck injury could have affected Mr. Cramer's overall credibility, we continue to agree that the issue of whether such evidence should have been allowed is moot.