The Superior Court affirms a decision of the Industrial Accident Board that concluded Superior Court Civil Rule 41(a)(1)’s ‘Two Dismissal’ rule did not apply to an IAB proceeding.

The claimant was injured in a work accident on October 28, 2018. On December 9, 2019, the claimant filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due (DACD) that sought total disability benefits and two surgeries, including a spine surgery. That petition was resolved (in conjunction with another) via a settlement of the parties in October 2020. On April 20, 2021, the claimant filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due that sought acknowledgment of two spine surgeries and a corresponding period of total disability. Before the hearing, the claimant voluntarily withdrew the petition. The claimant re-filed an identical petition on December 10, 2021. The employer moved to dismiss the petition on multiple bases, including that it was barred by (1) the doctrine of collateral estoppel, (2) the doctrine of res judicata and (3) Superior Court Civil Rule 41(a)(1)’s “Two Dismissal” rule. If applied, the Two Dismissal rule would consider the voluntary dismissal of the April 20, 2021, petition to be an adjudication upon the merits as it pertained to the spinal surgery/temporary total disability issue.

The Industrial Accident Board rejected the employer’s arguments regarding collateral estoppel and res judicata because the issues and claims presented by the DACD were new and different from prior agreements between the parties. Additionally, the Board explained that it is not bound by the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and its own rules and the rules of the Administrative Procedures Act do not include a similar provision. Accordingly, it did not regard the petition as dismissed with prejudice. The employer’s motion was denied. 

On appeal, the court agreed with the Board’s conclusions. It reasoned that the Board promulgates its own rules and cannot be forced to apply the Superior Court’s Rules of Procedure, even when there is no specific rule on point. The Board is explicitly permitted to disregard customary rules of evidence and legal procedure so long as the disregard does not amount to an abuse of discretion. There was no abuse of discretion here, and the decision was affirmed.
 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 6, June 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}