Preview:

No.                       96-1070
                          STATE OF WISCONSIN             IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
CITY OF MENASHA
PUBLIC WORKS and
WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.                        ERRATA SHEET
KRISTIN J. ERICKSON and
LABOR AND INDUSTRY
REVIEW COMMISSION,
Defendants-Respondents.
Marilyn L. Graves                                        Peg Carlson
                          Clerk of Court of Appeals      Chief Staff Attorney
P.O. Box 1688                                            119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI               53702                          Madison, WI   53703
                          Court of Appeals District I    Court of Appeals District II
633 W. Wisconsin Ave.                                    2727 N. Grandview Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI             53203                          Waukesha, WI    53188-1672
Trial Court Clerk                                        Court of Appeals District IV
                          Outagamie County Courthouse    119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
303 S. Walnut St.                                        Madison, WI   53703
Appleton, WI   54911
Jennifer Krapf                                           Hon. Harold V. Froehlich
                          Administrative Assistant       Circuit Judge
                          119 Martin Luther King Blvd.   Outagamie County Courthouse
Madison, WI   53703                                      Appleton, WI   54911
James R. Macy                                            Jennifer L. Edmondson
Godfrey & Kahn                                           Stilp, Cotton & Wells
P.O. Box 2728                                            P.O. Box 25
Appleton, WI   54911                                     Appleton, WI   54912-0025




No.   96-1070
Mark V. Sewall                                                                Stephen M. Sobota
Sigman, Janssen                                                               Ass't Attorney General
303 S. Memorial Drive                                                         P.O. Box 7857
Appleton, WI   54911-5978                                                     Madison, WI   53707-7857
PLEASE  TAKE  NOTICE  that  the  attached  opinion  is  to  be
substituted for the above-caption opinion which was released on November 5,
1996.
Dated this 14th day of December, 2006.
-2-




COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
NOTICE
A party may file with the Supreme Court                                          This opinion is subject to further editing.
a petition to review an adverse decision                                         If  published,  the  official  version  will
by the Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and                                       appear  in  the  bound  volume  of  the
RULE 809.62, STATS.                                                              Official Reports.
No.   96-1070
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
CITY OF MENASHA
PUBLIC WORKS and
WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KRISTIN J. ERICKSON and
LABOR AND INDUSTRY
REVIEW COMMISSION,
Defendants-Respondents.
APPEAL  from  a  judgment  of  the  circuit  court  for  Outagamie
County:  HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J., LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER CURIAM.    The City of Menasha Public Works and its insurer
appeal  a  judgment  affirming  a  Labor  and  Industry  Review  Commission
decision.   LIRC modified and affirmed an administrative law judges's decision
awarding Kristin Erickson temporary disability benefits.   Menasha argues that




No.   96-1070
LIRC violated the doctrine of collateral estoppel by ignoring its own findings in
prior related proceedings, Erickson should have been judicially estopped from
presenting  inconsistent  or  conflicting  testimony,  LIRC  should  not  have
considered or relied on Erickson's medical reports and the ALJ was biased
against Menasha.  We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.
Erickson sustained an ankle injury in the work place.   The ALJ
found her 25% permanently disabled based on testimony that she had reached a
healing plateau.    LIRC affirmed that finding.    Erickson submitted a second
application  for  a  hearing  claiming  that  her  condition  had  improved  and
Menasha had unreasonably refused to rehire her.   The ALJ rejected that claim
and LIRC sustained that decision.   At the request of Menasha's insurer, LIRC
reopened the first case based on the newly discovered evidence that Erickson's
ankle had healed.   LIRC remanded the matter for a new hearing "on the issues
of  causation  of  disability,  nature  and  extent  of  disability,  and  liability  for
medical  treatment  and  expenses."    The  ALJ  ruled  that  Erickson  was  not
permanently disabled, but was partially disabled for a longer time.   The ALJ
ordered  additional  payment  for  the  partial  disability,  less  the  amount
previously paid for the permanent disability.   LIRC slightly modified the ALJ's
decision, reducing the award for temporary disability, and affirmed the decision
as modified.  Menasha and its insurer challenge this decision by LIRC.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not prevent LIRC from
reaching the decision to extend Erickson's temporary disability benefits.   Upon
receiving  newly  discovered  evidence  that  Erickson  was  not  permanently
disabled, LIRC exercised its authority under § 102.18(4)(c), STATS., to reopen the
disability award.   That statute allows the commission to set aside its previous
award and remand the case to the department for further proceedings.   LIRC
remanded  the  matter specifically  to  consider  the  nature  and  extent  of  the
disability.   Nothing in the statutes or in LIRC's order limits the authority of the
ALJ to grant recovery consistent with the findings that arise from the new
-2-




No.   96-1070
hearing.   To apply collateral estoppel to these proceedings, forcing LIRC to
abide by its earlier rulings, would defeat the purpose of allowing the case to be
reopened for newly discovered evidence.   When faced with newly discovered
evidence casting doubt on its earlier decision, LIRC may vacate that decision
and is not precluded by collateral estoppel from changing its findings.
Erickson was not judicially estopped from submitting a medical
report establishing that her ankle had healed.   Menasha views this case as one
where Erickson presents inconsistent evidence at the various hearings as it suits
her interests.    This cynical view is not necessitated by the evidence and is
inconsistent with LIRC's findings.   Rather, the evidence is consistent with a
good-faith error in the prognosis for Erickson's ankle that was corrected by
Erickson and her doctors upon discovery.
The  evidence  submitted  at  the  final  hearing  was  sufficient  to
support LIRC's findings.   The weight and credibility of testimony are decided
by LIRC.  E.F. Brewer Co. v. DILHR, 82 Wis.2d 634, 636-37, 264 N.W.2d 222, 224
(1978).   LIRC had the right to believe the evidence presented at the most recent
hearing that showed Erickson's ankle healed better than the doctors expected
and that she suffered only a temporary disability.   LIRC could reasonably view
the medical reports as an update or correction rather than a true inconsistency.
Finally,  the  record  does  not  establish  any  bias  by  the  ALJ.
Menasha has not overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity of those
who serve as adjudicators in state administrative proceedings.   See Guthrie v.
WERC, 111 Wis.2d 447, 455, 331 N.W.2d 331, 335 (1983).  After one of the earlier
proceedings, counsel for Menasha's worker's compensation insurer accused the
ALJ of being "lazy."    The ALJ responded by letter.    This incident does not
establish any bias by the ALJ.    In addition, LIRC, not the ALJ, makes the
-3-




No.   96-1070
ultimate findings of fact and conclusions upon which the award is based.
Menasha does not argue that LIRC was biased.
-4-




No.   96-1070
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS.
-5-

Download 10677.pdf

Wisconsin Law