- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Workers Compensation
- Date Filed: 12-21-2016
- Case #: A157147
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Shorr, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Reynolds sought review of the Worker’s Compensation Board’s (Board) order holding his claim for a new medical condition was barred by claim preclusion and by the “law of the case” because the medical condition sought was previously denied by the Board. The “law of the case” doctrine applies to previous appellate court rulings and not trial court or administrative rulings. ILWU, Local 8 v. Port of Portland, 279 Or. App. 157, 164, rev den, 360 Or. 422 (2016). Claims are precluded by the previous litigation of a claim based on the “same factual transaction.” Casey v. City of Portland, 277 Or. App. 574 (2016). The Court held that “law of the case” did not apply because the original claim was not heard in an appellate proceeding. The Court also held that the evidence presented indicated that Reynolds’s claim was based on a separate factual transaction than his previous claim. The Court therefore held that Reynolds’s new claim was not precluded by the prior injury claim. Reversed and remanded.