SAIF v. Maldonado

The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of an appellate court holding after remand and on subsequent appeal but does not apply in the context of two separate administrative proceedings "because it gives preclusive effect only to the prior ruling or decision of an appellate court . . . and does not bar such rulings from being overruled in separate cases." ILWU, Local 8 v. Port of Portland, 279 Or App 157, at 164, rev den, 360 Or 422 (2016).

SAIF sought review of "an order of the Workers' Compensation Board (the board) reversing the administrative law judge's (ALJ) order which upheld SAIF's denial of Claimant's injuries."  SAIF assigned "error to the board's reliance on the 'law of the case' doctrine in evaluating the evidence."  On appeal, SAIF argued that the law of the case doctrine did not apply, therefore making the ALJ order valid and allowing SAIF to deny a spondylolytic defect.  In response, Claimant argued that the medical opinions on which SAIF relied were contrary to the “law of the case,” and therefore unpersuasive. The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of an appellate court holding after remand and on subsequent appeal but does not apply in the context of two separate administrative proceedings "because it gives preclusive effect only to the prior ruling or decision of an appellate court . . . and does not bar such rulings from being overruled in separate cases." ILWU, Local 8 v. Port of Portland, 279 Or App 157, at 164, rev den, 360 Or 422 (2016).  The Court of Appeals held that the board's reliance on the law of the case doctrine to reject SAIF's position was in error "because the evidence was inconsistent with the previous stipulation, not with the appellate court ruling or decision."  Reversed and remanded.