The employer maintains that that part of the settlement agreement by which the employee waived and discharged the employer from any claim “for medical expenses in connection with his left knee and his right knee” unambiguously releases the employer from liability for medical expenses relating to the treatment of the right knee arising in the future. See, e.g., Wix Corp. v. Davis, 945 So.2d 1040 (Ala.Civ.App.2005). The employer further maintains that the judgment approving the settlement agreement adopted the terms of the settlement agreement and bars the employee from relitigat-ing the issue of the employer’s liability for future medical expenses relating to the treatment of his right knee. See, e.g., Shop-A-Snak Food Mart, Inc. v. Penhale, 693 So.2d 479, 480-81 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). In October 2007, the employee filed a motion
holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings holding res judicata ie claim preclusion doctrine applies to consent judgments recognizing that res judicata applies to judgments approving workers compensation settlements holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings