Garcia v. American Airlines

USCA1 Opinion









UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 93-1534

SANDOR GARCIA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

Juan Rafael Gonzalez-Munoz for appellant.
__________________________
Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez with whom Jorge L. Capo Matos was on
__________________________ ____________________
brief for appellee.


____________________

December 29, 1993
____________________























COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. Appellant Sandor Garcia seeks
____________________

to litigate a tort claim against his employer pursuant to the

Puerto Rico workers' compensation act even though he previously

received substantial benefits based on the same injury under the

Florida workers' compensation scheme. The district court granted

summary judgment for the employer, American Airlines, ruling that

the exclusive remedy provision contained in the Florida statute

protected the company from further liability. We affirm.

I. Background
__________

The relevant facts in this case are few and undisputed.

Plaintiff Garcia, a flight attendant based in Puerto Rico,

injured his back while working on a flight from San Juan to

Newark, New Jersey, in early 1991. From 1979 through the time of

the injury, American provided workers' compensation benefits to

its employees through a policy in Florida, pursuant to the

Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. 440.01-

440.60. Shortly after his accident, Garcia received a "Notice of

Injury" form from the airline and filed it with the Florida

Department of Labor. He ultimately received about $44,000 in

medical and disability payments under American's Florida policy.

In January 1992, Garcia filed this damages action in Puerto

Rico, alleging that American was subject to traditional tort

liability because it had failed to fulfill its obligation to

secure workers' compensation coverage for Garcia through the

Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund. Under the Commonwealth's

workers' compensation act, an employer who is required to


-2-














participate, but does not, may be sued for damages by an injured

employee. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 11, 16.
___

In response, American raised two primary defenses. First,

it argued that it was not obligated to provide workers'

compensation coverage for Garcia in Puerto Rico because less than

50% of his worktime was spent there. The airline thus was free

to insure its employees elsewhere and, because Garcia had

received substantial benefits under the Florida statute --

indeed, higher benefits than would have been available in Puerto

Rico -- American was immunized from further liability by that

act's exclusive remedy provision.1 Second, the airline argued

that, to the extent statutory immunity was not dispositive, the

matter raised an arbitrable minor dispute over which the court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the federal

Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151-188.

The district court dismissed the complaint on statutory

immunity grounds, ruling that Puerto Rico would give effect to

the exclusive remedy provision contained in the Florida workers'

compensation act. The court summarized its conclusion as

follows:

The Court finds, therefore, that where an employee
spends over fifty (50) percent of his work time outside
of Puerto Rico, and is insured and compensated pursuant
to the workers' accident compensation laws of a state
which provides benefits superior to those granted in
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would have

____________________

1 The Florida workers' compensation act states that an
employer's statutory liability for benefits shall be "exclusive
and in place of all other liability of such employer . . . ."
Fla. Stat. Ann. 440.11(1).

-3-














no interest in barring the operation of the foreign
statute's exclusive remedy provision.

The court did not rule on American's argument concerning the

Railway Labor Act.2

On appeal, Garcia reiterates his contention that the Florida

exclusive remedy provision may not be given effect to bar his

claim for common law damages in Puerto Rico. Our review of the

district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. See
___

Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc., 991 F.2d 21, 24 (1st Cir.
______________________ ___________

1993).

II. Discussion
__________

We begin with a few basic principles of workers'

compensation law to help to put this case into context. First,

it is well established that an injured worker may obtain

successive awards in different states, with total recovery

limited to the amount of the higher award. 4 A. Larson,

Workmen's Compensation Law 85.00, at 16-18 (1992); see Thomas
___________________________ ___ ______

v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 286 (1980)
____________________________

(plurality); Industrial Comm'n of Wisconsin v. McCartin, 330 U.S.
______________________________ ________

622, 626 (1947). Thus, Garcia's receipt of benefits from Florida

does not automatically preclude an effort to obtain additional

benefits through his tort action in Puerto Rico.

Virtually all workers' compensation statutes, however,

contain an exclusive remedy provision, stating that an award of

statutory benefits forecloses any other type of compensation for


____________________

2 We also find it unnecessary to address this issue.

-4-














the injury, including damages in tort. Workmen's Compensation
______________________

Law, 88.10, at 16-171.3 Employees trade their tort remedies
___

"for a system of compensation without contest, thus sparing

[them] the cost, delay and uncertainty of a claim in litigation."

Mullarkey v. Florida Feed Mills, Inc., 268 So.2d 363, 366 (Fla.
_________ _________________________

1972). Conversely, workers' compensation statutes typically

allow a damages remedy against employers who fail to assume the

statutory compensation burdens. The theory behind these

provisions is self-evident. An employer who avoids sharing in

the burdens of the system is not entitled to enjoy its primary

benefit, the immunity from non-statutory liability. Florida's

and Puerto Rico's statutes each have both types of provisions.

This case involves a head-on collision between the

employee's right to successive workers' compensation remedies and

the immunity granted by individual jurisdictions to employers who

participate in their own workers' compensation programs.

Specifically, Garcia claims that he is entitled to bring a

damages suit in Puerto Rico -- where American was not insured --

despite the statutory immunity conferred on the airline in

Florida -- where it was insured.




____________________

3 An exception to the rule allowing successive benefits
awards may exist when an exclusive remedy provision, in addition
to foreclosing other types of relief within the state,
specifically bars remedies available in other jurisdictions. See
___
Workmen's Compensation Law 85.20-85.40; Thomas v. Washington
__________________________ ______ __________
Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 286-90 (1980) (plurality)
________________
(concurring opinion of White, J.). This exception is not
relevant here.

-5-














Garcia's argument rests on several related contentions: (1)

that the Florida workers' compensation act is inapplicable to his

injury because no Florida interests were implicated; (2) that

American was obligated to insure him under the Commonwealth's

compensation scheme because he is a Puerto Rico resident whose

job is based there; (3) and, finally, that the inapplicability of

the Florida statute renders its exclusive remedy limitation

impotent, while the neglected obligation under Puerto Rico law

empowers him to sue American for damages.

We believe that each of these premises is flawed. As a

result, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed

Garcia's tort action.

A. Applicability of Florida law.
____________________________

It is important to remember, as noted above, that more than

one workers' compensation statute can apply to a single

compensable injury, so long as each state has a "more-than-

casual" interest in the case. 4 Workmen's Compensation Law
___________________________

86.00, at 16-48. Florida law may apply to Garcia's injury,

therefore, even if another state -- or the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico -- has more substantial interests in his claim. "[T]he test

is not whether [Florida]'s interest is greater than that of any

other state, but only whether [Florida] has a valid interest."

Id. 86.34, at 16-60 (citing Dissell v. Trans World Airlines,
___ _______ _____________________

511 A.2d 441, 444-45 & n.3 (Me. 1986)).

Garcia claims that Florida law is wholly inapplicable to his

injury, and that the exclusive remedy provision contained in the


-6-














Florida workers' compensation statute therefore may not be

invoked to bar his damages lawsuit in Puerto Rico. Florida law

does not apply, he claims, because neither he, his job, nor his

injury has a Florida connection. He emphasizes that he is a

Puerto Rico resident based in Puerto Rico; that he entered into

his employment relationship with the airline, a Delaware

corporation, in Texas; and injured himself while traveling

between San Juan and Newark, New Jersey.

In support of his argument, Garcia relies heavily on a

Florida Supreme Court case, Wainwright v. Wainwright, 237 So.2d
__________ __________

154 (1970), in which a Georgia resident employed by a Georgia

corporation sought benefits under the Florida workers'

compensation statute for an injury suffered in Georgia. The

court upheld the administrative denial of the claim and, in the

course of its opinion, noted that the statute could not be

applied "to other states in which . . . the State of Florida has

no interest and to cases over which the State of Florida has no

authority," id. at 156. Garcia maintains that the same factors
___

upon which the Florida Supreme Court relied to reject the claim

in Wainwright exist here: an extraterritorial injury to a non-
__________

resident employee working for an out-of-state employer.

Garcia's argument, and his reliance on Wainwright, are
__________

misplaced. Unlike in Wainwright, neither the employer's business
__________

nor the employee's work are located exclusively outside Florida.
_______

American Airlines operates in Florida, and Garcia worked on

flights into and out of at least two Florida cities. See Sworn
___


-7-














Statement of Jorge Olascoaga, Flight Service Supervisor, at 6.

Although Garcia is correct that Florida's contacts with his

injury are limited, this is at least in part because of the

inherently mobile nature of both his job and American's business.

The airline has 21,000 flight attendants spread across the

country, and no single state has a substantial relationship with

all of them.4

Moreover, even if these contacts were deemed insufficient to

trigger the coverage provisions of the Florida act directly,

Garcia nevertheless would be covered because of American's

voluntary assumption of liability under the Florida system. The

Florida statute permits an otherwise excluded employer to waive

the exclusion and bring itself or a specific injury within the

act's coverage by choosing to participate in the Florida worker's

compensation scheme. See Fla. Stat. Ann. 440.04(2).5 See
___ ___

Mandico v. Taos Construction, 605 So.2d 850, 852 (Fla. 1992) (per
_______ _________________

curiam); Blair v. Edward G. Gerrits, Inc., 193 So.2d 172, 174-75
_____ ________________________

____________________

4 Not all flight attendants based in Puerto Rico are
residents of the Commonwealth. The Puerto Rico group includes
residents of Florida and the United States Virgin Islands.

5 Section 440.04(2) provides:

When any policy or contract of insurance specifically
secures the benefits of this chapter to any person not
included in the definition of "employee" or whose
services are not included in the definition of
"employment" or who is otherwise excluded or exempted
from the operation of this chapter, the acceptance of
such policy or contract of insurance by the insured and
the writing of same by the carrier shall constitute a
waiver of such exclusion or exemption and an acceptance
of the provisions of this chapter with respect to such
person . . . .

-8-














(Fla. 1966); Rainwater v. Vikings Men's Hairstyling, 382 So.2d
_________ _________________________

1313, 1314-15 (Fla. App. 1980). For more than a decade before

Garcia's accident, American voluntarily provided accident

insurance for its employees in Florida, and, in this case, it

specifically facilitated Garcia's application for benefits by

providing him with the required form.

Even more to the point, we think it decidedly inequitable

for Garcia to claim that Florida law is inapplicable now that he

has received all the benefits that law provides. Workers'

compensation systems are designed around a quid pro quo:
____ ___ ___

employees secure "a practical and expeditious remedy for their

industrial accidents," Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Co., 330 U.S.
________ __________________

469, 476 (1947), while employers secure "a limited and

determinate liability," id. Unlike in Wainwright, where the
___ __________

employer and the Florida Industrial Claims Commission both denied

the employee's claim for benefits, Garcia has received

substantial compensation under the Florida scheme. Indeed, it is

undisputed that the compensation he received exceeds the benefits

to which he would have been entitled under Puerto Rico law.

Garcia makes no offer to return the Florida benefits. Having

acquiesced in the applicability of Florida law when it suited his

interest, Garcia cannot fairly be allowed to disclaim its

application now.6

____________________

6 Garcia's uncontested receipt of benefits in Florida is
perhaps the single most significant distinction from the
Wainwright case inasmuch as it shows American's intent to waive
__________
any possible exclusion from coverage under the Florida act. In
rejecting the request for benefits in Wainwright, the Judge of
__________

-9-














Determining that Florida law may be applied does not lead

inevitably, however, to the conclusion that the present action is

barred by the exclusive remedy provision in Florida's

compensation act. The Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected the

notion that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution

requires a second jurisdiction to defer to limiting provisions

contained in the workers' compensation legislation of the

jurisdiction in which an injured worker first received benefits.

4 Workmen's Compensation Law 88.12, at 16-183. See Thomas, 448
__________________________ ___ ______

U.S. at 279-80, 284-86; Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 413-14
_______ _____

(1955); McCartin, 330 U.S. at 628-30. This means that Garcia not
________

only is permitted to seek additional benefits, but also that

Puerto Rico is free to disregard Florida's exclusive remedy

provision.


____________________

Industrial Claims made a specific finding that there was no
waiver, and the state supreme court held that competent
substantial evidence supported that ruling. 237 So.2d at 156-57.

Moreover, in light of Garcia's acceptance of undisputed
benefits, we see no reason to dwell on the substantiality of
Florida's relationship to the injury. Given the policy of
successive awards, the only relevant concern is whether Florida's
exercise of jurisdiction would compromise the law of another
jurisdiction with more substantial contacts, in violation of the
Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. See generally
___ _________
4 Workmen's Compensation Law 86.00-87.74; Allstate Ins. Co. v.
__________________________ _________________
Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 308-313 (1981); id. at 322-23 (concurring
_____ ___
opinion of Stevens, J.); Dissell v. Trans World Airlines, 511
_______ _____________________
A.2d 441, 443-45 (Me. 1986). This is, in essence, the issue
addressed in Section B infra. For contrasting circumstances,
_____
see, e.g., Johnson v. United Airlines, 550 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla.
____ _______ _______________
App. 1989) (court reversed dismissal of claim for benefits
because flight attendant's employment was "principally localized"
in Florida), and Dissell, 511 A.2d at 445 (over objection of
________
airline, Maine benefits held applicable based on employee's
residence there).

-10-














When a worker's second claim is for common-law damages

rather than additional benefits, however, most states, on grounds

of comity and policy, will respect the other jurisdiction's

exclusive remedy provision immunizing the employer from non-

statutory liability. 4 Workmen's Compensation Law, 88.00,
___________________________

88.10, at 16-171-183 (citing cases); see, e.g., Kelly v. Guyon
___ ____ _____ _____

Gen. Piping, Inc., 882 F.2d 108, 110 (4th Cir. 1989); Woodner v.
_________________ _______

Mathers, 210 F.2d 868, 873-74 (D.C. Cir. 1954). The rationale
_______

underlying this uniform treatment is compelling. The central

purpose of compensation acts is "to substitute a limited but

certain remedy for the former remedy in tort -- a compromise

benefiting both employer and employee." 4 Workmen's Compensation
______________________

Law, at 88.13, at 16-187 (citing Wilson v. Faull, 27 N.J. 105,
___ ______ _____

141 A.2d 768 (1958)). When an employee who has received benefits

under such a compensation scheme later tries to get back into the

common-law damage system, he is essentially un-doing this

fundamental quid pro quo. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict
____ ___ ___ ___

of Laws 183, 184 (1971).7 Courts that give effect to foreign

____________________

7 Comment c of 183 states, in part:

The grant of two or more awards to an injured employee
is not repugnant to the basic principle of workmen's
compensation which is to impose absolute but limited
liability upon the employer. For a State, on the other
hand, to subject a person who has been held liable in
workmen's compensation to further unlimited liability
in tort or wrongful death would frustrate the workmen's
compensation policy of the State in which the award was
rendered.

See also 184, comment b ("A person who accepts an award under
___ ____
the workmen's compensation statute of a given state may justly be
held bound by the provisions of that statute insofar as immunity

-11-














exclusive remedy provisions therefore do so to effectuate broad

compensation principles. See Wilson, 141 A.2d at 778; Woodner,
___ ______ _______

210 F.2d at 874.

Whether Puerto Rico would follow this course in the present

circumstances is the ultimate question we must answer. We

therefore turn to a review of the relevant Puerto Rico law.



B. Applying Puerto Rico law
________________________

Garcia claims that Puerto Rico law requires American

Airlines to participate in the Commonwealth's insurance fund, and

that the airline's failure to do so makes it an uninsured

employer subject to a tort suit under section 16 of the Puerto

Rico Workmen's Accident Compensation Act, 11 P.R. Laws Ann. 16.

His receipt of benefits from Florida does not foreclose such a

suit, Garcia maintains, in light of "the Commonwealth's

unequivocal policy that all employers carrying business in Puerto

Rico must contribute to the financial feasibility of the Fund."

He asserts that allowing employers to escape liability by

obtaining insurance elsewhere would undermine the Commonwealth's

compensation framework.

In emphasizing Commonwealth policy, Garcia has put his best

foot forward. Courts that have rejected application of a foreign

state's exclusive remedy provision have done so because the forum

state's policy would be disadvantaged. See, e.g., Reid v.
___ ____ ____

Hansen, 440 N.W.2d 598, 601-02 (Iowa 1989) (plaintiff's receipt
______

____________________

from tort and wrongful death liability is concerned.")

-12-














of benefits in Nebraska does not bar tort action under Iowa

statute); Davis v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 289 F. Supp. 835, 838
_____ ____________________

(D. Ore. 1968) (Oregon's policy of providing incentive to elect

coverage in Oregon would be undercut by Idaho exclusive remedy

provision). If Garcia were correct that barring his suit would

conflict with Commonwealth compensation policy, his position

would have considerable force.

We can find no conflict, however. Puerto Rico's workers'

compensation act, like all such laws, reflects a primary interest

in ensuring that the burden resulting from an employee's work-

related injury falls upon his employer rather than the individual

or his community. See, e.g., Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co., 380 U.S.
___ ____ ______ _______________

39, 41 (1965); Delano v. City of South Portland, 405 A.2d 222,
______ _______________________

225 (Me. 1979). As the district court recognized, this interest

"has been amply satisfied by the benefits Garcia received through

Florida's workers' accident compensation system" -- benefits

exceeding those available under the Puerto Rico statute. Puerto

Rico's policy, like Florida's, immunizes employers who pay

statutory benefits from further liability. P.R. Laws Ann. tit.

11, 21. Because the two governments agree on the compensation

quid pro quo, Puerto Rico would have no reason to reject
____ ___ ___

Florida's exclusive remedy provision unless it had an interest in

providing an incentive for American and similar employers to

insure their employees specifically in the Commonwealth.

Our reading of Puerto Rico policy, however, indicates that

the Commonwealth expressly has disclaimed an interest in covering


-13-














employees who do most of their work outside Puerto Rico. In an

opinion and subsequent explanatory letter, the Commonwealth's

Secretary of Justice concluded that flight attendants who perform

more than 50% of their work elsewhere are excluded from the

coverage of the Commonwealth's labor laws and Section 16 of the

Bill of Rights of the Puerto Rico Constitution, which guarantees

various employment-related rights, including safe working

conditions and a reasonable minimum salary. See Op. Sec. Just.,
___

No. 1977-22, Trans. (Oct. 21, 1977); Letter of Dec. 28, 1977,

Trans.8 In making this determination, the Secretary relied on

federal and Commonwealth caselaw indicating that "job situs" is

"fundamental and determinative" with respect to the applicability

of labor laws, Op. Sec. Just., Trans., at 6 (citing Oil, Chemical
_____________

& Atomic Workers Int'l Union, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S.
____________________________________ _______________

407, 420-21 (1976) (job situs is controlling factor as to whether

state can apply its right-to-work laws); Green Giant Co. and
____________________

Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 104 P.R.
____________________________________ ______________

Dec. 489, 4 Off. Trans. 682, 697 (1975) (constitutional guarantee

of overtime compensation does not apply to Puerto Rico migrant

workers who work outside of Puerto Rico)).

Although the Secretary's opinion does not explicitly address

the workers' compensation statute, we are persuaded that its

____________________

8 As in this case, the flight attendants whose employment
triggered the Justice Department inquiry were based in Puerto
Rico and lived there. Indeed, they were assigned to "turn around
flights" between Puerto Rico and New York, and thus Puerto Rico
is "the point of departure and the place toward which they return
within the framework of a period of twenty-four hours," Op. Sec.
Just., No. 1977-22, Trans., at 2 (Oct. 21, 1977).

-14-














underlying rationale reaches that system. The Secretary's intent

that his determination be applied broadly is strongly suggested

by the explanatory letter, in which he concluded that even

employees of a Puerto Rico airline are excluded from coverage of

the Commonwealth's labor laws because they spend the majority of

their work time outside the jurisdictional limits of Puerto Rico.

See Letter of Dec. 28, 1977, Trans., at 2. We think it follows
___

naturally from this inclusive approach that the opinions be

interpreted to encompass all legislation designed to govern the

employer-employee relationship, including the Puerto Rico

Workmen's Accident Compensation Act.

Puerto Rico, therefore, would have no reason to penalize

American Airlines for providing workers' compensation insurance

for Garcia under the Florida system rather than through the

Puerto Rico Insurance Fund, particularly since Florida provided

superior benefits. See generally Alcoa Steamship Co. v. Velez,
___ _________ ___________________ _____

376 F.2d 521, 524 (1st Cir. 1967) (intention by Puerto Rico

legislature that its workers' compensation act "not be used as a

vehicle to require the maintenance of duplicating compensation

insurance by an employer"). Accordingly, we agree with the

district court that American Airlines is entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law because Puerto Rico would respect the

statutory immunity granted the company under Florida's worker's

compensation statute.

Affirmed.
_________




-15-