Teacher’s Push for More Eye Injury Benefits Doesn’t Get Past Res Judicata, Rules

Case File

After a teacher experienced a serious eye injury at the hands of a violent student, her request for benefits later on hit twin snags in the form of a legal doctrine and a procedural rule. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Zacharko v. Sarasota County School Board, No. 19-011497EBG (Fla. OJCC 12/20/24).

What Happened

A teacher sustained compensable injuries when she was kicked in the chest and hit her head against the wall while an aggressive student was being removed from her classroom, resulting in:

(1) Right eye floaters

(2) Nonspecific knee pain

(3) Cervical sprain and strain

(4) Post-concussion headaches

(5) Posttraumatic bilateral occipital neuralgia

(6) Posttraumatic bilateral cervicalgia

(7) Posttraumatic dizziness

The hearing concluded with a finding of maximum medical improvement without permanent impairment or restriction.

The teacher testified that testified that since the accident she had suffered from visual and cognitive symptoms including a loss of depth perception, reduced field of vision, seeing lines and dots in her field of vision, visual wavering, silent migraines, and losing her train of thought and sought to be evaluated by a neuro-ophthalmologist to address her ongoing symptoms.

Twice, the teacher dismissed petitions for benefits seeking authorization of a consultation with a neuro-ophthalmologist before requesting an order for one from the OJCC.

Rule of Law

Under the doctrine of res judicata, any benefit due but not raised at the final hearing which was ripe, due, or owing at the time of the final hearing is waived. Also, under Florida Rule of Administrative Procedure 60-Q-6.116(2), a claim or petition may be dismissed by the claimant or petitioner without an order by filing, or announcing on the record, a voluntary dismissal at any time before the conclusion of the final hearing. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a second notice of voluntary dismissal shall operate as an adjudication of denial of any claim or petition for benefits previously the subject of a voluntary dismissal.

What the OJCC Said

According to the OJCC, res judicata and the administrative procedure rules meant that the teacher's case could go no further.

"As the claim for an evaluation with a neuro-ophthalmologist was ripe due and owing at the time of the November 19, 2022, Final Hearing, but not raised, I find the claim has been waived and is barred by the doctrine of res judicata," the OJCC wrote.

Similarly, the teacher, who was represented by counsel, ran into a roadblock on the procedural requirements.

Workers' Comp 101: In Mieses v. Applebee's, 14 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009), the court applied the two-dismissal rule to find that the second dismissal of a worker's claims operated as an adjudication of denial of those claims. 

"I find the voluntary dismissal entered on December 21, 2023, was the second voluntary dismissal of the claim for evaluation with a neuro- ophthalmologist and that dismissal operates as an adjudication of denial.

Takeaway

Res judicata and procedural rules can come together to bring an end to a claimant's journey for benefits.

Share This Article: