Page 14 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022

12

the proposed amended pleading was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of
merit. A mere lateness of defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer was not
coupled with any discernible prejudice to plaintiff.

The court also properly awarded summary judgment to defendants dismissing the
complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants in action to recover damages for
personal injuries. Here, the denial of the plaintiff’s claim for benefits by the Workers'
Compensation Board operated to collaterally estop plaintiff from recovering damages in
a personal injury action involving the same alleged accident.

FACTS: The plaintiff filed a claim for worker’s compensation benefits in July 2014 for a
knee injury allegedly sustained during an incident where a hoist elevator at a
construction site made multiple sudden rises and drops earlier in the month. In
November 2014, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge at which the
plaintiff, the general superintendent of the defendant, and a medical administrator for a
subcontractor at the worksite, testified. After the hearing, the ALJ denied the plaintiff’s
claim.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants alleging they were liable for
damages for their common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law 200, 240(1) and
241(6). The parties proceeded with discovery and in April 2017, the plaintiff filed a note
of issue and certificate of readiness. In September 2017, the defendants moved for
leave to amend their answer to include the affirmative defense that the plaintiff’s causes
of action were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and additionally sought
summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint. The Supreme Court
granted the branches of the defendants’ motion which were for leave to amend and for
summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint on the basis of collateral
estoppel.

This Court found, inter alia, where collateral estoppel has or has not been applied as a
result of workers' compensation findings, the central inquiry, regarding the identity of
issue, is whether the Workers Compensation Board evaluated an issue on its merits
which, by its nature and scope, then prevents the plaintiff from establishing one or more
elements for a viable personal injury action, whether as to liability or damages. Here,
the defendants met their burden establishing prima facie their entitlement to judgment
as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff’s action was barred by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel. The ALJ's findings, as affirmed by the Workers' Compensation
Board, established as a matter of fact that the accident claimed by the plaintiff did not
occur, or did not occur in the described manner as would cause injury. In opposition to
the defendants’ prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

4