Jarmuth v. Cox ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-2009
    RONALD E. JARMUTH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    KEVIN COX; KEVIN COX PROFESSIONAL GROUP, now known as Kevin Cox,
    M.D., Professional Corporation,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (1:07-cv-00033-IMK)
    Submitted:   May 5, 2008                      Decided:   May 16, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ern Reynolds, ERN REYNOLDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Roanoke,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy R. Linkous, Karen T. McElhinny,
    Margaret L. Miner, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, P.L.L.C., Morgantown,
    West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald E. Jarmuth appeals the district court’s order
    granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss Jarmuth’s claims related to
    documents in Appellees’ possession.              We have reviewed the record
    and find no reversible error.
    Jarmuth is a federal civilian employee who filed a notice
    with his employer that he intended to seek compensation for a
    job—related injury.         Jarmuth communicated with the Office of
    Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) and at their request agreed
    to see Dr. Kevin Cox for an evaluation.             In his complaint against
    Cox and his practice, Jarmuth, asserting claims citing federal
    regulations and statutes, sought to prevent the release of his
    medical   records,       obtain   them    from     Cox,   and   justify   their
    destruction.*
    This action, initially filed in state court, was removed
    by Appellees to federal court. Federal courts may exercise removal
    jurisdiction over state court actions “of which the district courts
    of the United States have original jurisdiction.”                   28 U.S.C.
    §   1441(a)    (2000).     A   district    court’s    original    jurisdiction
    includes all civil claims arising under federal law.                Pinney v.
    Nokia, Inc., 
    402 F.3d 430
    , 441 (4th Cir. 2005). Jarmuth challenges
    *
    When amendment to the complaint occurs after removal, the
    court looks to the original complaint to determine the propriety of
    removal. Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 
    402 F.3d 430
    , 443 (4th Cir. 2005);
    see Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 
    305 U.S. 534
    , 537 (1939).
    - 2 -
    the existence of federal jurisdiction in this case.            He claims the
    district     court   erred   by   concluding    “it      appears    that     some
    substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary
    element of one of the well-pleaded state claims.”              Franchise Tax
    Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 
    463 U.S. 1
    , 13 (1983).
    Federal regulations apply to any claims regarding access
    to or disclosure of records relating to claims for benefits filed
    under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (“FECA”). See, e.g.,
    20     C.F.R.   §    10.11   (2007)     (“All      questions       related     to
    access/disclosure, and/or amendment of FECA records maintained by
    OWCP or the employing agency, are to be resolved in accordance with
    this     section.”).     Because      resolution    of    Jarmuth’s        claims
    necessitated the application of federal law, the case arose under
    federal law.    We thus conclude the district court did not err when
    it exercised its jurisdiction to decide Jarmuth’s claims.
    Jarmuth also argues the district court erred when it
    granted Appellees’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.                 We
    review de novo the district court’s decision to grant a motion to
    dismiss.    See Bosiger v. U.S. Airways, 
    510 F.3d 442
    , 448 (4th Cir.
    2007).     The factual allegations in the complaint must be accepted
    as true and those facts must be construed in the light most
    favorable to the plaintiff.        Erickson v. Pardus, 
    127 S. Ct. 2197
    ,
    2200 (2007).
    - 3 -
    Jarmuth   first   claimed   Cox   planned   to   release    Cox’s
    medical evaluation of Jarmuth to OWCP in breach of Jarmuth’s
    privacy rights.       Cox, however, was permitted by federal law to
    disclose the information to OWCP.       See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512 (2007).
    Jarmuth also complained Cox refused to provide to him copies of the
    evaluation and Jarmuth’s OWCP file, but those files are official
    OWCP records and only OWCP could disclose them to Jarmuth.             See   20
    C.F.R. § 10.12(a) (2007).         Jarmuth also sought to compel the
    destruction of all records in Cox’s possession related to Jarmuth.
    Cox, however, lacked legal authority to destroy official records of
    OWCP.    See 20 C.F.R. § 10.11   (2007).      As a result, Jarmuth failed
    to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the
    district court properly granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2009

Judges: Niemeyer, Traxler, King

Filed Date: 5/16/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024