Opinion ID: 2516842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robertson's Amended Claim Was Barred by Res Judicata.

Text: The Board found that the principles of res judicata barred Robertson's amended claim. We have held that res judicata, or claim preclusion, applies to workers' compensation cases, however it is not always applied as rigidly in administrative proceedings as it is in judicial proceedings. [7] When applicable, res judicata precludes a subsequent suit between the same parties asserting the same claim for relief when the matter raised was or could have been decided in the first suit. [8] It requires that (1) the prior judgment was a final judgment on the merits, (2) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the prior judgment, and (3) the same cause of action and same parties or their privies were involved in both suits. [9] In finding that the amended claim was barred by res judicata, the Board found that [t]he issue to be decided is identical to that already litigated: whether the employee is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for his lower back condition. The employee does not assert that he sustained a different injury on September 1, 1994. Indeed, the employee admitted that the claims are identical. We hold that Robertson's claim is barred by the rule against claim splitting, which is a conventional application of the doctrine of res judicata. [10] The rule against claim splitting provides that all claims arising out of a single transaction must be brought in a single suit, and those that are not become extinguished by the judgment in the suit in which some of the claims were brought. [11] When analyzing claim splitting, the relevant inquiry is not whether the two claims are grounded in different theories, but whether they arise out of the same transaction or core set of facts. [12] Robertson had the option of arguing in his original claim that he was either injured on October 26, or alternatively that he was injured while working for AMI on September 1 and aggravated the injury on October 26. Because both claims are based on the same injury and the same core set of facts, these claims should have been brought together. Because they were not, Robertson's amended claim is barred by res judicata. [13]
Because the Board correctly dismissed Robertson's amended claim on the basis of res judicata, we AFFIRM the superior court's decision.