Shannon Jacks v. Meridian Resource Company
701 F.3d 1224
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- FEHBA creates federal employee health benefits and assigns OPM to contract with private carriers like BCBS-KC.
- BCBS-KC administers the FEHBA Plan in Missouri; Meridian provides subrogation/reimbursement services for BCBS-KC.
- Plan benefits require enrollees to reimburse BCBS-KC from third-party recoveries; reimbursements go to the Treasury Fund.
- Shannon Jacks sues BCBS-KC in Missouri state court challenging the Plan’s subrogation provision under state law.
- BCBS-KC removes to federal court asserting CAFA, federal-question, and federal-officer removal grounds; district court remands.
- This court Vacates the district court judgment and remands for further consideration consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review remand under CAFA local controversy | Jacks concedes CAFA-local controversy review; other bases not appealable. | BCBS-KC argues broader review of the remand order is permissible under §1291. | Remand regarding CAFA local controversy is reviewable on appeal. |
| Whether federal officer removal applies under § 1442(a)(1) | Removal invalid because subrogation isn’t under federal control. | BCBS-KC acted under federal direction with colorable federal defenses; removal warranted. | Section 1442(a)(1) removal applies; federal-forum is appropriate. |
| Availability of federal common law or FEHBA preemption as a defense | Claims involve federal common law or FEHBA implications; removal should fail. | FEHBA preemption and related defenses are colorable and support removal. | Court does not resolve merits of these defenses; the federal forum is available for resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2006) (FEHBA context and subrogation considerations in removal analysis)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (U.S. 2007) (defining 'acting under' and limits of federal officer removal)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2009) (removal reviewable when grounded on §1447(c) grounds)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1996) (finality and reviewability of remand decisions outside §1447(c))
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1969) (scope of the federal officer removal statute and defenses)
- Bennett v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076 (6th Cir. 2010) (considerations of colorable defenses under removal statute)