Mark Cerasoli, Employee, Hale Development, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Insurer

Mark Cerasoli (plaintiff) was employed by Hale Development (Hale) (defendant). In September 1992, Cerasoli allegedly injured his back at work while lifting a heavy bag of cement. Hale’s insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) (defendant), voluntarily paid workers’-compensation benefits to Cerasoli until September 1993. When Liberty’s voluntary payments ended, Cerasoli filed a formal claim for benefits with the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents. Liberty refused to pay Cerasoli, asserting, among other things, that witnesses and documentary evidence disputed Cerasoli’s claim that he had been injured in the course of his employment. In November 1993, following a conference between the parties, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) denied Cerasoli’s claim for benefits in a blanket order that did not make any specific findings regarding liability, causation, or any other factors. Cerasoli did not appeal the denial, but he filed a new workers’-compensation claim two years later based on the same injury Cerasoli allegedly suffered in September 1992. Cerasoli’s claim was assigned to a different ALJ from the ALJ who had denied Cerasoli’s original claim. Liberty raised a res judicata defense before the new ALJ, and the new ALJ denied Cerasoli’s claim. Cerasoli appealed. At a hearing on the appeal, the judge held that the unappealed November 1993 order denying Cerasoli’s claim bound the parties only with respect to matters that had explicitly been decided in the order. Because the order was silent on the ALJ’s grounds for decision, the judge held that the order had no preclusive effect. The judge thus issued a decision that allowed Cerasoli to litigate the merits of the workers’-compensation claim, including the issue of original liability for Cerasoli’s injury. Liberty appealed, again arguing that res judicata and issue preclusion barred any further litigation of Cerasoli’s claim.