ADAM STREGE, Employee/Petitioner , v. COM. DRYWALL, INC., and FEDERATED MUT. INS. GRP., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and CUSTOM DRYWALL, Employer/Respondents, and OPUS GRP., Insurer/Respondents.

The employee, proceeding pro se, petitions this court to vacate a Findings and Order served and filed on October 20, 2006, based upon his being incompetent to represent himself during the hearing held on September 13, 2006, and a subsequent substantial change in medical condition. Prior to filing a response brief, the employer and insurer moved to dismiss the petition for failing to state a basis for setting aside the award and on the basis of res judicata.  Concluding that the employee has failed to show good cause to vacate the findings and order and applying the doctrine of res judicata, we dismiss the employee’s petition.

On March 18, 2004, the employee, Adam Strege was working as a carpenter hanging sheet rock. During a dispute with a co-worker over framing done on the job site, the employee was pushed and fell backwards against a wall striking his head and left shoulder. As a result of the work incident, the employee claimed injuries to his neck and left arm, as well as a traumatic brain injury causing a consequential emotional injury. The pro se employee sought Temporary Total Disability benefits at a hearing held on September 13, 2006. On October 20, 2006, the compensation judge issued a Findings and Order determining the employee failed to prove he suffered the claimed traumatic brain and emotional injury from the March 18, 2004, work incident. (O. 3, F. 28).  The judge found that the employee’s testimony was not reliable regarding his emotional and behavioral difficulties before March 18, 2004.  (F. 9).  The employer and insurer appealed the findings and order, and that appeal was later withdrawn and dismissed without a decision by this court on December 15, 2006.  No appeal or cross-appeal of the Findings and Order was made by the employee.

On June 12, 2012, the pro se employee filed an amended claim petition and request for formal hearing seeking benefits for claimed traumatic brain and neck injuries on March 18, 2004. The amended claim petition and request for formal hearing were dismissed based upon a lack of jurisdiction to reconsider the October 2006 award on August 16, 2012. The employee did not appeal the dismissal order.

On June 2, 2022, the pro se employee filed a petition to vacate the October 20, 2006, Findings and Order.  In response to the employer and insurer’s objection that the employee’s petition lacked a factual basis, the employee was given additional time to supplement his petition. While the employee submitted voluminous argument, the submissions did not substantiate the factual basis for his petition to vacate the 2006 award.  This court dismissed without prejudice the employee’s petition to vacate on October 27, 2022.  The dismissal of the petition by this court was appealed by the pro se employee to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  On January 30, 2023, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed employee’s appeal for failure to timely file the petition for writ of certiorari.

On March 2, 2023, proceeding pro se, the employee again filed a petition to vacate the 2006 Findings and Order. The employee asserted that the 2006 award should be vacated based upon a substantial change in medical condition that could not be anticipated or, in the alternative that employee was incompetent due to a traumatic brain injury to represent himself at the hearing held on September 13, 2006. No medical, psychiatric, or psychological assessments or reports were submitted by employee in support of his petition.

On November 15, 2023, this court denied the pro se employee’s petition to vacate the order in his 2006 workers’ compensation case against the employer, Commercial Drywall, Inc., and its insurer, Federated Mutual Insurance Company.  The employee appealed that decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial by summary affirmance on May 30, 2024.

After the Supreme Court decision, the pro se employee made several attempts to open a petition to vacate case in the CAMPUS system.  None of the cases opened properly and no documents were filed as a part of any those attempts.  In response to the pro se employee’s actions, the court opened a petition to vacate case in CAMPUS, docket number WC24-6565, and informed the employee that documents would be accepted by email for filing.  On June 10, 2024, the court received a number of documents that were mailed by the employee.  Court staff uploaded these documents to CAMPUS and electronically served the documents on the parties in the employee’s prior petition to vacate.^[1]   On June 12, 2024, Commercial Drywall, Inc., and its insurer, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, filed a motion to dismiss the petition to vacate as failing to state a basis to vacate and barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to the May 30, 2024, Supreme Court decision

On June 16, 2024, the pro se employee submitted a request for assistance in filing documents and requesting that the documents submitted on June 10, 2024, be deleted.  The pro se employee described his difficulty using CAMPUS and maintained that he had an additional 300 pages of documents that he wished to submit.  On July 1, 2024, the employee submitted a form requesting a reasonable accommodation from the court, reiterating the requests in his June 16, 2024, submission.

On July 22 and 23, 2024, the pro se employee filed six collections of documents through CAMPUS, apparently without assistance. Among these documents is the pro se employee’s Petition to Vacate, consisting of 252 pages, and identifying the following reasons to vacate the 2006 award:

With the foregoing filing, the court considered the employee’s petition to vacate received.  On August 5, 2024, the employer and insurer moved for dismissal for failure to meet the criteria for vacating an award under Minn. Stat. § 176.461 and due to the doctrine of res judicata.  The pro se employee responded the following day with a motion to appoint counsel and to be declared incompetent under Minn. Stat. § 524.5-102, subd. 6, with a conservator or guardian being appointed to represent his interests.

In an order filed August 21, 2024, this court remarked it had accommodated the pro se employee’s demonstrated difficulty with using CAMPUS, both in the present proceeding and the 2023 petition to vacate.  The accommodation provided allowed for court staff to receive the pro se employee’s documents by email and upload those documents into CAMPUS, with electronic service effectuated through a function of CAMPUS.  In the 2023 petition to vacate proceeding, the pro se employee used this accommodation to accomplish his filing.  There had been no showing by the pro se employee that this accommodation was inadequate in the current proceeding.  Also, there is no basis for deleting the documents that had already been provided and uploaded to CAMPUS prior to July 22, 2004, particularly as Minn. Stat. § 176.461(a) requires a filed application seeking to vacate an award before this court can act.

The court in its order noted it had no authority to appoint counsel to represent the pro se employee.  Further, the pro se employee requested that he be declared incompetent under Minn. Stat. § 524.5-102, subd. 6.  This action must be taken before a district court judge, not this court.  Minn. Stat. §§ 524.5-102, subd. 4, and 524.5-110.

On August 22, 2024, the pro se employee filed a 266-page response to the motion to dismiss filed by the employer and insurer.  The court in its order decided to rule on the employer and insurer’s motion to dismiss prior to accepting a response brief from the employer and insurer on employee’s motion to vacate.  This order is issued by the court on the employer and insurer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s petition.

This court has authority to vacate or set aside an award only for cause under Minn. Stat. § 176.461.  Cause is limited by statute to mutual mistake of fact, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or substantial and unanticipated change in medical condition. The pro se employee’s petition to vacate is based upon being incompetent to represent himself during the hearing held on September 13, 2006, and a substantial change in his medical condition.

It is the obligation of the employee to provide this court with information or evidence that would allow us to conclude that there is cause to vacate the award. Sherva v. Regis Paper Co., No. WC07-118 (W.C.C.A. Oct. 2, 2007) and Minn. Rule 9800.1100, subp. 1 (an application to set aside an award must be accompanied by supporting affidavits, medical reports, copies of documentary evidence and a memorandum of law). The burden of proof lies with the employee seeking to vacate the award. Groshong v. The Light Depot, 65 W.C.D. 349, 355 (W.C.C.A. 2005).

The employee raises several issues in his petition to vacate the 2006 award which are outside of this court’s jurisdiction. The employee asserts that he sent 30 million emails relating to the employer murdering 6 members of congress and the insurers placing human hearts in nuclear reactors. The authority of this court is limited to the consideration of questions in law and fact arising under the workers’ compensation laws of the state. Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5. The issues listed do not pertain in any way to the employee’s workers’ compensation claim or his petition to vacate and, therefore, we will not address them.

In his current petition, the employee again argues that the 2006 award should be set aside because he was incompetent to represent himself at the 2006 hearing and a substantial change in medical condition. These exact claims have been considered by this court in our 2023 decision, which was appealed by the employee and affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The employee has provided no new evidence concerning the period in 2006 when he obtained an award of compensation for physical injuries suffered on March 18, 2004. The employee has submitted documentary evidence that was assessed in the independent medical examination (IME) conducted on behalf of the employer and insurer and considered by the court in the 2023 decision.  None of the information submitted by the employee shows either a substantial change in medical condition or that the employee was unable to represent himself at the hearing in 2006 resulting in an award of benefits.

In workers’ compensation proceedings, principles of res judicata prevent subsequent consideration or review of issues litigated and decided in prior proceedings. See Fischer v. Saga Corp., 498 N.W.2d 449, 450, 48 W.C.D. 368, 369 (Minn. 1993); Alexander v. Kenneth R. LaLonde Enters., 288 N.W.2d 18, 20, 32 W.C.D. 312, 314 (Minn. 1980).  The principle of res judicata applies in workers’ compensation cases.  Mach v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921, 75 W.C.D. 279 (Minn. 2015).  Also referred to as claim preclusion, res judicata bars a claim that was previously determined.  Id.  The doctrine of res judicata is intended to provide finality, and “a final judgment on the merits bars a second suit for the same claim by parties or their privies.”  Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co., 353 N.W.2d 899, 902 (Minn. 1984).  This court has already painstakingly reviewed the employee’s assertions and determined that he could not establish a reason to vacate the 2006 award, including that he was incompetent when the 2006 hearing occurred or through a substantial change in medical condition.  Strege v. Commercial Drywall, No. WC23-6507 (W.C.C.A. Nov. 15, 2023), aff’d without opinion (Minn. May 30, 2024).

The employee raises the identical arguments made in the prior litigation and proceedings.  No medical, psychiatric, or psychological evidence has been submitted by the employee to support his claim that he was incompetent when the hearing was held in 2006.  As in 2023, we see nothing in the employee’s submissions that would entitle him to vacation of the 2006 award, and because employee has already litigated the claims raised herein, they are barred by res judicata.  We have reviewed the employee’s petition and submissions with great care. Based upon our thorough and painstaking review, we find nothing in the employee’s petition that satisfies the requirements of the statute to vacate the 2006 award.  The petition is dismissed.