Hutchins v. McKesson Speciality Care Solutions
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 1/20/12. (rd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CHAD HUTCHINS
v.
McKESSON SPECIALTY CARE
SOLUTIONS
)
)
) NO. 3-11-1167
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 5). For the reasons
stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
FACTS
Plaintiff filed this action against his former employer in the Circuit Court for Rutherford
County, Tennessee, alleging common law retaliatory discharge arising from a worker’s
compensation claim. Docket No. 1-2. Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks “an appropriate amount of
damages for lost income, benefits and expenses incurred,”punitive damages, costs, discretionary
costs, and “what other and further relief as may be deemed appropriate by the Court.” Id.
Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1446 and 1332, claiming
complete diversity of citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has moved to remand the action, arguing that the amount in controversy is
less than $75,000.
REMOVAL OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION ACTIONS
The parties to this action have overlooked one important statutory prohibition. Federal law
specifically provides that a civil action in state court arising under the worker’s compensation laws
of that state may not be removed to any district court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). No
one disputes that Plaintiff’s action alleges retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim.
Whether a case “arises under” the worker’s compensation laws is a question of federal law.
Thompson v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 797 F.Supp. 618, 619 (W.D. Tenn. 1992). This Court
agrees with the reasoning in Thompson and finds that a suit alleging that an employee was
discharged in retaliation for filing worker’s compensation claims “arises under” the worker’s
compensation laws and, therefore, is nonremovable to federal court. Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 624;
see also Brown v. Fedex Freight, Inc., 2010 WL 1963385 (M.D. Tenn. May 17, 2010).1
For this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and this action is remanded to
the Circuit Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court is aware of the cases which find that a retaliatory discharge claim is not
part of a worker’s compensation claim but, rather, is a separate tort action. See, e.g., Van Cleave
v. McKee Baking Co., 712 S.W.2d 94, 95 (Tenn. 1986), but it agrees with the distinctions made by
the Thompson court. Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 622-23.
2
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?