In Maria Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, the New York Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff in a personal injury case may not litigate an issue already decided in a related workers' compensation proceeding. In a 4-1 decision, the court precluded Jose Verdugo, who was injured at a construction site in 2003, from seeking lost earnings or medical expenses that he claims were incurred after a workers' compensation judge in 2006 found that he was no longer disabled. The court said the judge's ruling was binding in the personal injury case because it was based on findings of fact. "Although legal conclusions and conclusions of mixed law and fact are not entitled to preclusive effect, findings of fact that are necessary for an administrative agency to reach are entitled to such effect." The ruling reversed a 2011 decision from the Appellate Division, First Department. Verdugo was delivering food on Christmas Eve in 2003 when a sheet of plywood from a construction site fell on him, injuring his head, neck and back, the court said. He also developed post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, according to the court.
In 2004, while Verdugo was receiving workers' compensation benefits, his wife and sister-in-law, Maria Verdugo and Maria Auqui, filed a personal injury suit against the owners of the construction site, Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, as well as the construction manager and a subcontractor.
While the suit was pending, an administrative law judge ruled that Verdugo no longer suffered a disability. The Workers' Compensation Board in 2007 reversed with respect to Verdugo's post-traumatic stress disorder, but otherwise affirmed. In 2009, Seven Thirty One moved in the personal injury case to preclude Auqui from seeking medical expenses or lost income incurred after the 2006 decision, arguing that the issue had already been decided definitively by the Workers' Compensation Board. The court agreed and granted Seven Thirty One's motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, in 2011 reversed, finding that the board's ruling involved a mixed question of law and fact. The Court of Appeals on Thursday disagreed. Under Thursday's decision, Verdugo may still seek compensation for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life incurred after the workers' compensation judge's 2006 ruling, because that ruling concerned only Verdugo's physical injuries and his ability to return to work.
