2-Dismissal Rule doesn’t Shut Down Fla. School Worker’s 3rd Petition for Benefits

25 for 25 in '25

While a third petition for benefits following two voluntarily dismissed PFBs would ordinarily cause a claim to run into a res judicata wall, an arguably different injury might be enough to let the claim advance. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Moreno v. Palm Beach County School Board, 146 So. 3d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

What Happened

A Florida school employe field a petition for benefits claiming permanent total disability for a low back injury. At a mediation conference, the employee agreed to dismiss the claim for permanent total disability benefits without prejudice.

The employee filed another petition, also seeking entitlement to PTD, and eventually voluntarily dismissed this petition.

The employee filed a third petition for PTD benefits, this time alleging a low back injury and psychiatric injuries. The employer, citing American Woodmark Co. v. Sipe, 117 So. 3d 70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013), argued that two dismissals of a claim operated to bar any future claim through the doctrine of res judicata.

The employee contended that res judicata did not apply because the third claim was based on his psychiatric condition.

The Judge of Compensation Claims agreed with the employer and held that the "two-dismissal" rule "absolutely" barred a PTD claim under res judicata principles where two prior voluntary dismissals of a PTD claim had been entered.

The employee appealed.

Rule of Law

Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.116(2) -- the "two dismissal rule" -- provides that a claim or petition may be dismissed by the claimant or petitioner without an order by filing, or announcing on the record, a voluntary dismissal at any time before the conclusion of the final hearing. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a second notice of voluntary dismissal shall operate as an adjudication of denial of any claim or petition for benefits previously the subject of a voluntary dismissal.

Under Caron v. Systematic Air Services, 576 So.2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), res judicata applies only when all of its elements are present, and a determining factor in deciding whether the cause of action is the same is whether the facts or evidence necessary to maintain the suit are the same in both actions.

What the Court Said

According to the court the JCC erred by focusing solely on the specific benefit claimed -- PTD benefits -- without giving due consideration to the general principles regarding res judicata.

The court explained that the allegations in the third petition arguably represented a different set of facts than was present before.

"The third PFB claimed entitlement to PTD benefits effective on a date subsequent to the filing date of the previously dismissed second PFB seeking PTD benefits," the court wrote. "In addition, the third PFB alleged that a new condition required consideration: Claimant's mental/psychiatric condition, one already accepted as compensable by the [employer]."

Thus, the JCC should have considered the facts and determined whether they differed from the facts integral to the previously filed petitions.

Verdict: The court reversed and remanded the JCC's order.

Takeaway

Different facts and a different alleged injury could be enough to circumvent the two-dismissal rule under Florida's res judicata principles.

Share This Article: