Opinion ID: 882856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: iicollateral estoppel

Text: Sharon contends that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the State from prosecuting her in this case. She argues that the State is precluded from prosecution by the State Fund's compromise settlement of the workers' compensation claim. We disagree, and hold that collateral estoppel does not apply in this case. The doctrine of collateral estoppel is also known as issue preclusion. It is similar to res judicata; however, res judicata bars the same parties from relitigating the same cause of action while collateral estoppel bars the same parties from relitigating issues which were decided with respect to a different cause of action. Boyd v. First Interstate Bank (1992), 253 Mont. 214, 218, 833 P.2d 149, 151. This Court has previously established a three-prong test to determine if the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to a particular case. Boyd, 833 P.2d at 151. 1. The identical issue raised has been previously decided in a prior adjudication; 2. A final judgment on the merits was issued in the prior adjudication; and 3. The party against whom the plea is now asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. Boyd, 833 P.2d at 151. The first prong, identity of issues, is the most crucial of the three elements. Anderson v. State (1991), 250 Mont. 18, 21, 817 P.2d 699, 702. In order to satisfy this element, the identical issue or precise question must have been litigated in the prior action. Anderson, 817 P.2d at 702. Collateral estoppel does not apply in this case, because Sharon cannot establish the threshold first element. The Full and Final Compromise Settlement reached between the State Fund and Sharon on July 23, 1987, dealt solely with the amount of benefits thought to be owed to Sharon. Sharon's conspiracy to commit theft was not known at the time the compromise agreement was reached, and thus the fraud issue was not actually raised or litigated. Therefore, the issue in the workers' compensation case and the issue in this criminal prosecution are not identical. A party who obtains workers' compensation benefits through trick and deception cannot assert the doctrine of collateral estoppel against the innocent victim. The State Fund is entitled to rely upon facts presented by the employer when applying for insurance coverage and by the employee when applying for benefits. If it is later discovered that the State Fund provided coverage or benefits because of fraud or deception, the State has the right to criminally prosecute those individuals to the fullest extent of the law. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and TRIEWEILER, HARRISON and WEBER, JJ., concur.