Tisdale v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Civ. A. No. J83-0222(B).

• Decision Date: 17 October 1984
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. J83-0222(B).
• Citation: 595 F. Supp. 1016
• Parties: Robert TISDALE, Plaintiff, v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION and Employers Casualty Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

595 F. Supp. 1016

Robert TISDALE, Plaintiff, v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION and Employers Casualty Company, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. J83-0222(B).

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

October 17, 1984.

James Phyfer, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff.

Clifford B. Ammons, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, Miss., for defendants.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

BARBOUR, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for change of venue filed by the Defendants, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and Employers Casualty Company. This action was originally filed on February 24, 1983, in the Chancery Court of Copiah County, Mississippi, and was subsequently removed to this Court. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that he was injured while working for his employer, Stone & Webster, on July 6, 1982. The Complaint seeks recovery under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation statutes. Prior to July 1, 1983, the Workers' Compensation scheme of Louisiana entailed judicial determination of controversies arising under the Workers' Compensation statutes. Since July 1, 1983, however, Louisiana has adopted the "administration" form of procedure requiring the initial filing of any claim in the office of the Workers' Compensation Administration, rather than in a court. R.S. 23:1310 (effective July 1, 1983). If the Plaintiff seeks recovery for an injury, or re-injury which occurred after July 1, 1983, his exclusive remedy would be filing a claim with the office of the Workers' Compensation Administration in Louisiana, rather than by proceeding in a court, whether in Mississippi or Louisiana. Mississippi courts have long held that actions governed by Louisiana Workers' Compensation law could be prosecuted in the Mississippi courts, applying Louisiana law. The basis for this holding is that Mississippi courts are fully capable of applying another state's law where the action was judicially cognizable in the foreign state. See, e.g., Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co., 156 Miss. 567, 126 So. 395 (1930). Mississippi courts will not exercise jurisdiction over a workers' compensation proceeding governed by another state's law where that state requires the proceeding to be brought before an administrative agency. See, e.g., Green v. J.A. Jones Const. Co., 161 F.2d 359 (5th Cir.1947); Bethlehem Steel Company v. Payne, 183 So.2d 912 (Miss.1966). In Green, the Fifth Circuit held that the Mississippi courts would not exercise jurisdiction to enforce Georgia's Workmens' Compensation Act where the exclusive forum was the Georgia State Board of Workmens' Compensation. In Bethlehem, the Mississippi Supreme Court, declining to exercise jurisdiction over a workmens' compensation proceeding governed by North Dakota law stated as follows:

It follows that the above stated general rule would preclude recovery under the North Dakota statute since the remedy under North Dakota Law is administrative rather than judicial. Appellee's claim could be filed only with the North Dakota Bureau of Compensation and could not be heard for the first time in any court, including the courts of North Dakota.

183 So.2d at 915 (emphasis added).

Although the Plaintiff is a Mississippi resident and the Mississippi courts have an interest in protecting the rights of Mississippi citizens, even when those rights arise under the law of a sister state, the Court is of the opinion that a Mississippi court, if faced with this issue, would dismiss this action to allow it to proceed before the appropriate administrative agency in Louisiana.

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under the theory of forum non conveniens, or in the alternative, for change of venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) (1976) is based upon two principle grounds:

1. The fact that the accident occurred in Louisiana and numerous witnesses are from Louisiana make the trial one which would be easier to try in Louisiana than in Mississippi;

2. Due to the complex nature of the recent statutory procedures for dealing with Louisiana Workers' Compensation claims, and due to the continuing nature of the remedy which requires an open file, as opposed to a single determination with respect to the Plaintiff's claim, the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Administration would be the appropriate forum to decide the Plaintiff's claim.

The rationale for the doctrine of forum non conveniens was discussed in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947):

The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.

Id. at 507, 67 S.Ct. at 842. Gilbert established two areas of consideration in determining whether to dismiss an action upon the grounds of forum non conveniens. Prior to reaching these grounds, of course, the doctrine requires that the Plaintiff have an alternative forum in which the action may be brought. The first area of consideration involves the "private interest" of the litigants.

An interest to be considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the private interest of the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial.

Id. at 508, 67 S.Ct. at 843. In the instant case, the facts indicate that the Plaintiff has one witness from the State of Mississippi, his treating physician, and the possibility of another witness, his wife. On the other hand, the Defendant has claimed that the Plaintiff's co-workers, supervisors and bookkeepers for the employer, and insurance company personnel all would be essential in this cause. All of these witnesses reside in Louisiana, beyond the process of this Court. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's accident occurred in Louisiana and a view of the premises would be impractical if the proceeding were held in Mississippi.

The second area of consideration involves the "public interest" involved in choosing a situs for the litigation.

Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than have a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

Id. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. at 843. Accord, Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947). As Professor Larson pointed out in his treatise on workmen's compensation law, the different workmen's compensation schemes enacted by the several states are complex and are best administered by the...