Hunton v. American Zurich Insurance Company
Filing
139
ORDER denying 82 Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint Re Lack of Jurisdiction. (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/9/2017. (MMO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Bryan Hunton,
No. CV-16-00539-PHX-DLR
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER
11
v.
12
American Zurich Insurance Company,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint Re
17
Lack of Jurisdiction. (Doc. 82.) The motion is fully briefed. For the following reasons,
18
the Court denies the motion.1
BACKGROUND2
19
20
On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant processed
21
his workers’ compensation claim in bad faith. At the time of the complaint, Defendant
22
was paying disability benefits to Plaintiff. On April 4, 2016, Defendant issued a Notice
23
of Claim Status terminating Plaintiff’s benefits effective March 15, 2016. Plaintiff then
24
filed a supplemental complaint alleging additional acts of bad faith occurring after the
25
26
27
1
Defendant’s request for oral argument is denied because oral argument will not
aid the Court’s resolution of the motion. LRCiv 7.2(f).
2
28
For purposes of this order, the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Complaint, (Doc. 68), are accepted as true. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067
(9th Cir. 2009).
1
original filing.
2
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, prior to issuing the Notice of Claims Status,
3
Defendant required him to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) with
4
Dr. Maric, who Plaintiff claims Defendant had reason to know was not independent.
5
Plaintiff claims that Defendant chose Dr. Maric knowing that Plaintiff had filed a
6
complaint with the Arizona Medical Board regarding Plaintiff’s previous interaction with
7
Dr. Maric for an IME. Dr. Maric opined that Plaintiff was no longer in need of active
8
medical care and recommended a one year supportive care award, care different from the
9
recommendations of Plaintiff’s treating doctor.
10
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant requested a Loss of Earning Capacity
11
Analysis on September 18, 2014 from Mayer Vocational Rehabilitation Services. This
12
report estimated Plaintiff’s monthly loss at approximately $2,300. After the April 2016
13
termination notice, Defendant requested another Loss of Earning Capacity Analysis from
14
VocMedEcon (VME).
15
employee for Plaintiff’s previous employer reported that Plaintiff was offered an
16
accommodated position and that he was terminated due to “attitude issues and
17
absenteeism.” Plaintiff claims Defendant was shopping for opinions from a vocational
18
analyst that would best serve its own interests and that Defendant knew or should have
19
known the statements were false.
The VME report allegedly indicated that a human resource
20
The allegations in Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint currently are being litigated
21
before the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) in relation to Plaintiff’s claims for
22
loss of earning capacity, ongoing medical care, and ongoing compensatory benefits.
23
Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint, arguing that the
24
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim until the ICA has
25
made a compensability determination. The Court disagrees.
26
LEGAL STANDARD
27
The court must dismiss a case over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.
28
R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “In a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the
-2-
1
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
2
Soghomonian v. United States, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1140 (E.D. Cal. 1999). “A federal
3
court is presumed to lack jurisdiction . . . unless the contrary affirmatively appears.”
4
Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225
5
(9th Cir. 1989).
6
DISCUSSION
7
The ICA has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate workers’ compensation benefits,
8
and a plaintiff generally cannot bring an action for bad faith denial of benefits if he has
9
not first sought relief through the ICA. Merkens v. Fed. Ins. Co., 349 P.3d 1111, 1115
10
(Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). Arizona’s Workers’ Compensation Act, however, “does not bar a
11
common law tort action that is independent of the workers’ benefit claim process if the
12
conduct does not fall within the coverage of the Act.” Id. at 1113 (internal quotation and
13
citation omitted).
14
Relying on Merkens, Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide
15
the compensability issues alleged because Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative
16
remedies at the ICA.
17
determination from the ICA, and instead sued to recover unpaid compensation and
18
benefits post termination. Id. at 1114. Thus, the plaintiff wanted a jury to determine both
19
her entitlement to benefits and the amount to which she was entitled. Id. at 1115-16.
20
Notably, the plaintiff abandoned her bad faith handling claims and “t[ied] all of her
21
damages to the denial of benefits.” Id. at 1114 n.5. On those facts, the Arizona Court of
22
Appeals held that the plaintiff was required to pursue administrative remedies before
23
pursing her claim for bad faith because she asserted damages based solely on the
24
termination of benefits. Id. at 1115-16.
In Merkens, the plaintiff had not sought a compensability
25
In this case, however, Plaintiff does not claim that his damages are tied only to the
26
termination of benefits. Rather, he alleges that Defendant improperly handled his claim.
27
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant abused the IME process and
28
participated in vendor shopping for a favorable result. Plaintiff’s allegations of bad faith
-3-
1
in the supplemental complaint are not based solely on the termination of benefits.
2
Indeed, Defendant itself acknowledges that “Plaintiff might still pursue a claim for bad
3
faith if the ICA were to find in favor of the Defendant on the issues of ongoing medical
4
care, indemnity and LEC benefits[.]” (Doc. 118 at 4.)
5
The Court recognizes that some of Plaintiff’s allegations, such as loss of income
6
and loss of ongoing medical care, might be intertwined with the pending ICA
7
determination. But even if portions of Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint properly are
8
construed as bad faith denial claims, Merkens held only that “in a bad faith denial of
9
benefits lawsuit, the worker must first have at least sought a compensability
10
determination from the Industrial Commission.” Id. at 1115. Plaintiff has done so here.
11
Importantly, Merkens also recognized that “there can be simultaneous proceedings in
12
both the Industrial Commission and superior court, [but] the superior court . . . should
13
wait to resolve any dispositive motions . . . until after the Industrial Commission has
14
resolved the challenges to the denial or termination of benefits.” Id. at 1115 n.6. Thus, to
15
the extent Plaintiff’s claims are in part tied to the denial of benefits, the Court need not
16
dismiss the supplemental complaint. It may, instead, wait to resolve any dispositive
17
motions until the ICA determination is complete.3 Accordingly,
18
19
20
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Supplemental
Complaint, (Doc. 82), is DENIED.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2017.
21
22
23
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3
Plaintiff indicates that the ICA likely will reach a final determination before
April 2017. (Doc. 112 at 4.) The deadline for filing dispositive motions is August 4,
2017. It appears likely, then, that the ICA will have made its determination before the
Court makes dispositive rulings in this matter.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?