Gaar v. Quirk, No. 95-30954
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before WISDOM, DAVIS and STEWART; WISDOM |
| Citation | 86 F.3d 451 |
| Parties | Dr. J. Frazer GAAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerard QUIRK and Rose Quirk, Defendant-Appellants. Summary Calendar. |
| Docket Number | No. 95-30954 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1996 |
Page 451
v.
Gerard QUIRK and Rose Quirk, Defendant-Appellants.
Fifth Circuit.
Page 453
Marc Wayne Judice, Michael W. Adley, Judice, Hill & Adley, Lafayette, LA, for J. Frazier Gaar, plaintiff-appellee.
Joseph R. Joy, III, Lafayette, LA, for defendants-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before WISDOM, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
WISDOM, Circuit Judge:
In 1993, the defendant/appellant, Gerard Quirk, 1 allegedly suffered an injury while working as a pipe-fitter for Seawolf Services. Quirk filed for compensation for these injuries under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). 2 A doctor selected by Quirk and one chosen by his employer's LHWCA insurance carrier each examined Quirk and reached opposite conclusions; Quirk's doctor determined that Quirk was disabled and in need of surgery to correct his injury while the insurance carrier's physician concluded that Quirk was not a candidate for surgery, that surgery could worsen his condition, and that his condition would improve. Because of the conflicting medical opinions, the insurance carrier denied coverage for the surgery.
To resolve their dispute, Quirk and the insurance carrier then agreed to be bound by the opinion of an independent medical examiner. They choose Dr. J. Frazer Gaar, the plaintiff/appellee. After performing his examination, Gaar concluded that Quirk was not in need of surgery and was fit to return to work. Based on Gaar's medical opinion, Quirk was denied LHWCA benefits.
Quirk and his wife then filed a claim against Dr. Gaar with the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund, 3 alleging that Gaar's opinion constituted medical malpractice. In response, Gaar filed the instant suit in federal district court, requesting a declaratory judgment that grants him judicial immunity from Quirk's state action because of Gaar's role in the LHWCA proceeding. The district court, agreeing with Gaar that he is entitled to immunity for the opinion he rendered for the quasi-judicial LHWCA proceeding, granted Gaar the requested declaratory judgment. Quirk now appeals this decision.
Though neither party nor the district court questioned jurisdiction, it is our duty to raise this issue sua sponte. 4 Parties who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts have the duty to establish jurisdiction by affirmatively alleging the facts conferring jurisdiction in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCall v. Dallas Independent School Dist., No. CIV.A. 3:99CV2118L.
...have the duty to establish jurisdiction by affirmatively alleging the facts conferring jurisdiction in their complaints." Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir.1996) (emphasis added). 9. "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State an......
-
Classic Performance v. Acceptance Indem., CIV.A. No. H-05-3929.
...§ 2201 is merely procedural, and that it extends only to those controversies within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453-54 (5th Cir.1996); Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 723 F.2d 1173, 1176-77 (5th Cir.1984). For that reason, federal courts may not enterta......
-
North Cent. F.S., Inc. v. Brown, No. C 96-3074-MWB.
...lie in some independent basis of jurisdiction," and, absent diversity, that basis must be federal question jurisdiction); Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1996) ("A petition for declaratory judgment concerning federal law is not sufficient to create federal jurisdiction; `hence the ......
-
Farmers Co-Op. Elevator, Woden, Iowa v. Doden, No. C 96-3144-MWB.
...Baseball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959, 965 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 16, 103 S.Ct. at 2849-50); Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 454 (5th Cir. 1996) ("The general rule is that a federal defense to a state law claim does not confer federal question jurisdiction.... [Th......
-
McCall v. Dallas Independent School Dist., No. CIV.A. 3:99CV2118L.
...have the duty to establish jurisdiction by affirmatively alleging the facts conferring jurisdiction in their complaints." Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir.1996) (emphasis added). 9. "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State an......
-
Classic Performance v. Acceptance Indem., CIV.A. No. H-05-3929.
...§ 2201 is merely procedural, and that it extends only to those controversies within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453-54 (5th Cir.1996); Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 723 F.2d 1173, 1176-77 (5th Cir.1984). For that reason, federal courts may not enterta......
-
North Cent. F.S., Inc. v. Brown, No. C 96-3074-MWB.
...lie in some independent basis of jurisdiction," and, absent diversity, that basis must be federal question jurisdiction); Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1996) ("A petition for declaratory judgment concerning federal law is not sufficient to create federal jurisdiction; `hence the ......
-
Farmers Co-Op. Elevator, Woden, Iowa v. Doden, No. C 96-3144-MWB.
...Baseball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959, 965 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 16, 103 S.Ct. at 2849-50); Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 454 (5th Cir. 1996) ("The general rule is that a federal defense to a state law claim does not confer federal question jurisdiction.... [Th......