Jarmuth v. Cox

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -