In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

MEDICAL ASSURANCE CO. v. HELLMAN (June 21, 2010)

Dr. Mark Weinberger was a wealthy Indiana physician. It seems, however, that only a portion of his wealth resulted from his legitimate medical practice. The rest of it came from defrauding insurance companies. In 2004, facing the prospect of civil and criminal litigation, Weinberger disappeared during a European vacation (read about his escapades on America's Most Wanted). Hundreds of malpractice claims were filed against him in the months following his disappearance. Those claims are working their way through Indiana's medical malpractice statutory procedures, although only four have proceeded to the actual lawsuit stage. Medical Assurance Company is Weinberger's malpractice insurance provider. It brought a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that Weinberger's disappearance breached his duty of cooperation and thus voided its duty to defend. Judge Sharp (N.D. Ind.) concluded that Medical had shown no actual prejudice and therefore stayed the proceedings. Medical appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Wood vacated and remanded. The Court quickly resolved two jurisdictional issues. First, the Court upheld diversity jurisdiction notwithstanding Medical's "information and belief" allegation of the citizenship of the 300+ individual defendants (the state malpractice plaintiffs). Although such an allegation is generally insufficient standing alone, the additional factors -- that each defendant was a claimant within the Indiana malpractice system and that no defendant contradicted the allegation --satisfied the Court. With respect to its appellate jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the district court's order was appealable under Quackenbush as an abstention-based stay order. On the merits, the Court noted that the Declaratory Judgment Act is a procedural device that allows a judge to declare the rights of the parties under the applicable state or federal law. One legitimate reason to refrain from such a declaration is the existence of a parallel proceeding. The proper inquiry in such a case includes consideration of the identity of the parties, the similarity of the issues, the relief available to the plaintiff, and whether a declaration will clarify the obligations of the parties. Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by issuing its stay order. Under Indiana law, Medical must show actual prejudice to prevail on its breach of cooperation argument. Although the district court thought that Medical could not show actual prejudice without interfering with the malpractice actions, the Court concluded that Medical should at least be given the chance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DEBARTOLO v. HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION (June 26, 2009)

Hansel DeBartolo was a surgeon and a limited partner in a surgical center in Joliet. The partnership agreement required DeBartolo to certify each year that he earned at least one third of his medical income from Medicare-approved procedures and he performed at least one third of those procedures at the surgical center in Joliet. The purpose of the certification was to qualify for a "safe harbor" in the Anti-Kickback Act, an act that makes criminal certain referral payments to physicians. When DeBartolo was unable to meet his certification obligations, the general partner exercised the contractual right to buy his interest. DeBartolo initiated an action for declaratory relief, claiming that the certification requirements of the partnership agreement violated the Anti-Kickback Act and, thus, were unenforceable. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. DeBartolo appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner vacated and remanded. Although both parties agreed that the district court had jurisdiction, the Court engaged in its own jurisdiction analysis. Section 1331 grants the power to hear matters "arising" under federal law. Here, DeBartolo cites the Anti-Kickback Act as a defense to an anticipated contract claim of the defendant. But, the Court said, a federal defense does not satisfy the "arising under" requirement of section 1331. When a party brings an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, he must establish that the defendants have a claim "arising under" federal law. The Court vacated the dismissal order of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

R. R. STREET & CO. v. VULCAN MATERIALS CO. (June 25, 2009)

R. R. Street has been the exclusive distributor for a dry cleaning solvent manufactured by Vulcan since 1961. Street alleges that Vulcan promised, in 1992, to and indemnify and defend Street for claims brought with respect to the solvent. Several lawsuits of that type are now pending against both Street and Vulcan. Several of Vulcan's insurers, including National Union, brought suit in California for a declaration that they are not required to defend Vulcan. National Union is also Street's insurer and has been defending Street in those lawsuits because Vulcan has refused to do so. Street and National Union sued Vulcan for breach of contract, promissory estoppel and indemnity. In addition, they asserted a claim for a declaration that Vulcan must defend and indemnify Street. Vulcan moved to either dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the California case. The district court dismissed the case pursuant to theWilton/Brillhart doctrine. Vulcan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court noted that the relief provided in the Declaratory Judgment Act is discretionary. In Wilton and Brillhart, the Supreme Court held that district courts had much discretion in deciding whether to even entertain a declaratory judgment action. It is undisputed, the Court continued, that a district court can dismiss a complaint where only declaratory relief is requested. Here, however, plaintiffs seek both declaratory and non-declaratory relief. The Court noted that it had never ruled on that issue -- although several other courts of appeal had. The Fifth Circuit holds that Wilton/Brillhart is inapplicable when a non-frivolous claim for non-declaratory relief is present. The Second, Tenth and Fourth Circuits endorse similar results. The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, rejects a bright line rule. It first asks whether non-declaratory claims exist that are independent of the declaratory relief requested. Independent claims are those that have a separate basis for jurisdiction and that can be resolved without the declaratory relief. If these independent claims exist, at least in the Ninth Circuit, the district court has almost no discretion to refuse to entertain them. The Court, upon reflection, thought the Ninth Circuit's approach was preferable and adopted a test whereby a district court should first determine whether the non-declaratory claims are independent of the declaratory claims. The Court defined "independent claim" as one which has its own jurisdictional basis and is viable without regard to the declaratory claim. If the non-declaratory claims are independent, Wilton/Brillhart doctrine should not be applied and the court should hear the claims. A court should also retain the declaratory claims for the sake of efficiency. Here, the non-declaratory claims are independent -- the district court would have diversity jurisdiction over the claims and declaratory relief is not a prerequisite for the resolution of the claims. The district court should have retained both the non-declaratory and declaratory claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link