Summary
This Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board memorandum opinion addresses an employee’s appeal following the dismissal of his second petition for benefits on grounds of res judicata. The employee had previously filed a claim that was dismissed with prejudice after he failed to comply with a court order to attend a mandatory medical examination. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, noting that the employee offered no legal argument to overcome the claim preclusion doctrine and failed to timely appeal the prior order. Costs on appeal were waived.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the employee’s second petition for benefits is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
- Whether the appellant’s failure to file a brief is sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeal.
Holdings
- The second petition is barred by res judicata and is dismissed.
- Failure to file a brief is not sufficient to dismiss the appeal; the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Key quotations
“The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.”
“It is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her.”
Factual background
Rickey Richardson worked for The Mapes Piano String Company and was injured on April 13, 2020. He filed a petition for benefits in August 2021 and again in December 2024, each time refusing to attend court‑ordered medical examinations. The trial court dismissed both petitions, the second dismissal based on res judicata.
Procedural history
Employee filed an initial petition in 2021 which was dismissed after failure to attend a medical exam. He later filed a second petition in 2024 alleging the same injuries. The trial court dismissed the second petition on res judicata grounds. Employee appealed, filing a notice of appeal in May 2025. The Appeals Board considered the appeal.