IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 94-50151
Summary Calendar
_____________________
TEXAS HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.,
as Administrator of the Texas
Health Enterprises, Inc.
Employee Injury Benefit Plan,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHEILA DIANNE REECE, etc., ET AL.,
Defendants,
SHEILA DIANNE REECE, Individually
and as Representatives of the
Class of others Similarly Situated,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(M0-93-CV-057)
_______________________________________________________
(December 16, 1994)
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. ("THE"), the administrator of
the Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. Employee Injury Benefit Plan
(the "Plan"), appeals the district court's denial of relief in
THE's action, brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, to obtain
compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and with the terms of
its ERISA plan. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Effective September 1, 1991, THE adopted the Plan for the
purpose of providing medical, wage replacement, death and
dismemberment benefits to employees of THE who sustained
accidental occupational injuries. The parties do not dispute
that THE's Plan qualifies as an ERISA employee benefit plan. All
employees of THE are expected to participate in the Plan. To
participate in the Plan, each employee must make a written
election to participate which includes a provision specifically
waiving and releasing all common law remedies for injuries
covered by the Plan.
Several THE employees who had elected to participate in the
Plan suffered on-the-job personal injuries covered by the Plan.
Each defendant received Plan benefits but also initiated common
law occupational injury claims against THE.
THE brought an action on behalf of the Plan under 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132 to enforce the terms of the Plan and to obtain declaratory
and other appropriate equitable relief. THE also invoked federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and jurisdiction to
2
grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201-2202. The
defendants named in THE's action were those THE employees who had
initiated personal injury claims against THE. The district court
disposed of the case through summary judgment, dismissing THE's
action without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
In Hook v. Morrison Milling Company, the Fifth Circuit
recently decided the issues controlling this case. 1994 WL
633789 (5th Cir.). This court decided that an employee's common
law occupational injury claims, such as those brought by the
employees in this case, do not "relate to" an employer's ERISA
plan. Id. at *7. This court therefore held that an employee's
state common law claims against his employer are not preempted by
federal ERISA law. Id. at *9. To enroll in the ERISA plan
offered by the employers in Hook, employees were required to sign
a waiver of all state law personal injury claims against their
employer. The Hook waiver provision closely parallels the waiver
at issue in this case. In Hook, this court found that the
existence of the waiver provision did not cause the state law
claims to become related to the ERISA plan and so did not trigger
preemption. Id. at *8-9. The Fifth Circuit noted that the
validity of the waiver and an employee's ability to state a cause
of action against his employer after signing the waiver were
issues to be resolved under state law. Id. at *11 n.4.
Applying Hook, it becomes clear that THE seeks equitable and
declaratory relief on questions which are controlled by state
3
law. THE asked the district court to declare that defendant
employees were bound by the waiver provision and could not bring
their state law personal injury claims. THE also asked the court
to enjoin defendant employees from bringing state law claims. As
stated in Hook, these issues do not relate to federal ERISA law
and are to be resolved under state law. The district court
therefore did not err in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over
THE's claims and in denying the relief requested by THE.
The fact that THE filed its action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§1132 does not change the analysis. Under 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(3), an ERISA plan administrator may bring an action to
enjoin violations of the terms of an ERISA plan or to obtain
other equitable relief to enforce the terms of an ERISA plan.
THE argues that the provision of 29 U.S.C. § 1132 requires this
court to interpret and enforce the terms of THE's ERISA plan,
including the waiver provision. But, as this court noted in
Hook, preemption is not triggered and a federal court is not
forced to accept jurisdiction over a state law claim "merely
because the employer crafts its ERISA plan in such a way that the
plan is inconsistent with that law or claim." 1994 WL 633789, at
*9. THE cannot rely on the Plan's waiver provision to force
jurisdiction upon the federal courts when the Fifth Circuit has
already held that the issues presented by THE are ones of state
law.
AFFIRMED.
4