 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rymer v. Hagler6/27/1989
to workers' compensation proceedings. (Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 616, 633 [102 Cal. Rptr. 815, 498 P.2d 1063]; Preciado v. County of Ventura, supra, 143 Cal. App. 3d 783, 787.) Three requirements must be met before the doctrine will be applied: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical with the one presented in the subsequent action; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted must have been a party or in privity with a party to the earlier action. (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion, supra, 58 Cal. 2d 601; Flynn v. Gorton (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1550, 1554 [255 Cal. Rptr. 768].) It is the burden of the person asserting collateral estoppel to prove that each of the requirements for application of the doctrine has been met. (Jackson v. City of Sacramento (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 596, 602 [172 Cal. Rptr. 826].)
A. The decision of the WCAB judge on the issue of coverage was a final order for purposes of collateral estoppel.
In the instant action the first and third requirements for application of collateral estoppel are clearly satisfied. As to the first requirement, the issue in both proceedings was whether Fremont provided workers' compensation coverage to Hagler at the time of appellant's injuries. As to the third requirement, the parties to both actions are identical. Satisfaction of the
second requirement is disputed, i.e., whether the WCAB judge's decision on the issue of coverage was a final order for purposes of collateral estoppel.
Contrary to appellant's contention, collateral estoppel does not require a final and full adjudication of the merits of the underlying action. It requires only a final adjudication of the issue sought to be precluded in the second action. (City and County of San Francisco v. Ang (1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 673 [159 Cal. Rptr. 56]; Kosowski v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 632 [216 Cal. Rptr. 280] [intermediate order allowing credit for wages earned by employee 's hobby considered on petition for reconsideration before final determination of benefits].)
The decision of the WCAB judge was a final adjudication on the issue of coverage. The order was final and subject to review by the WCAB. The judge informed the parties of their right to seek reconsideration pursuant to the statutory review process. In so doing, he impliedly informed the parties his decision was final, since reconsideration under section 5900, subdivision (a) may only be sought of final orders, decisions, or awards. An order, decision, or award of the WCAB or workers' compensation judge is final for purposes of a petition for reconsideration where it determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 39, 45 [147 Cal. Rptr. 30].) To be final, an order need not resolve all issues or represent a final determination of benefits. The term does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders, but it does include orders dismissing a party, rejecting an affirmative defense, granting commutation, terminating liability, and other orders affecting substantive issues. (1 Hanna, Cal. Law of Employee Injuries and Workmen's Compensation (2d rev. ed. 1977) § 7.01 .)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|