Gallup Med Flight, LLC. v. Builders Trust of New Mex.

• Citation: 240 F.Supp.3d 1161
• Decision Date: 28 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. CIV 16–1234 JB/LF,CIV 16–1234 JB/LF
• Parties: GALLUP MED FLIGHT, LLC., Plaintiff, v. BUILDERS TRUST OF NEW MEXICO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

240 F.Supp.3d 1161

GALLUP MED FLIGHT, LLC., Plaintiff,

v.BUILDERS TRUST OF NEW MEXICO, Defendant.

No. CIV 16–1234 JB/LF

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed February 28, 2017

Jeffrey A. Dahl, Andrew Lambert Johnson, Keleher & McLeod, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

Shannon Sherrell, Michael E. Kaemper, Rodey Dickason Sloan Akin & Robb PA, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Builders Trust of New Mexico's Partial Motion to Dismiss, filed November 17, 2016 (Doc. 4) ("MTD"); and (ii) Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed December 6, 2016 (Doc. 10)("Motion for Judgment"). The Court held a hearing on January 23, 2017. The primary issue is whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists where, as is the case here, a complaint asserts federal preemption of state workers' compensation regulation as the primary ground for entitlement to recovery. Because the Court concludes that Defendant Builders Trust of New Mexico has not established federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiff Gallup Med Flight, LLC's, state law contract claims against it, the Court will remand this case to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, County of McKinley, State of New Mexico, where it was originally filed, for further state court proceedings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court next sets out the factual background for this case. Given the different standards for ruling on a MTD and a Motion for Judgment, the Court presents a different set of facts tailored to each of the different motions. The factual background is as follows.

1. MTD Facts .

The Court takes its following recitation of the facts from Med Flight's Complaint for Debt and Money Due and Breach of Contract, filed November 10, 2016 (Doc. 1–4)("Complaint"). The Court does not set forth these facts as findings or the truth. The Court recognizes that the factual background is largely Med Flight's version of events.

According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff, Med Flight, is a company with its principal place of business in Gallup, New Mexico, and the Defendant, Builders Trust, is a workers' compensation insurance company doing business in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶¶ 1–2, at 1. The Complaint then alleges, as background, that on or about October 5, 2015, "Michael Woods," a "Murphy Builders" employee, received emergency medical treatment at Rehoboth McKinley Christian Health Care Services Emergency Department ("Rehoboth Health"), in Gallup, New Mexico, for a work-related injury. Complaint ¶ 4, at 1. The Complaint alleges that Builders Trust provides "workers' compensation insurance" to Woods' employer, Murphy Builders. Complaint ¶ 5, at 1.

The Complaint explains that Physician Assistant Floyd Bodden, PA–C, at Rehoboth Health was unable to treat Woods' medical condition, and thus Doctor Kenneth Kelly, MD, authorized his transfer to University of New Mexico Hospital ("UNMH"). See Complaint ¶ 6, at 2. For Woods' transport, Med Flight's "fixed wing aircraft" service was retained as the medivac from Rehoboth Health to UNMH. Complaint ¶ 7, at 2. The Complaint further alleges that Med Flight's transport of Woods proceeded safely and in accordance with federal law. See Complaint ¶ 8, at 2. The controlling federal law, according to the Complaint, is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd ("EMTALA"), and the regulations implementing the EMTALA and regarding "Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (‘CMS')," found at 42 C.F.R. § 489.24. Complaint ¶¶ 10–11, at 2. The Complaint provides that the CMS regulations mandate that

it is the treating physician at the transferring hospital who decides how the individual is transported to the recipient hospital and what transport service will be used, since this physician has assessed the individual personally. The transferring hospital is required to arrange transport that minimizes the risk to the individual who is being transferred, in accordance with the requirements of § 489.24 [ (e)(2)(iv) ].

Complaint ¶ 11, at 2 (alteration in original). Here, the Complaint indicates that Med Flight "provides critical emergency air transportation," that Med Flight operates under a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and constitutes an "air carrier" under "the Airline Deregulation Act ..., Pub. L. No. 95–504, 92 Stat. 1705 (1978)," and that Bodden at Rehoboth Health "completed and signed a MEDICAL NECESSITY TRANSPORT FORM" when deciding to transport Woods to UNMH. Complaint ¶¶ 12–14, at 2–3. The Complaint thus explains that, under the Airline Deregulation Act ("Airline Act"), "it is in the public interest to place maximum reliance on competitive market forces and on actual and potential competition (A) to provide the needed air transportation system, and (B) to encourage efficient and well-managed carriers to earn adequate profits and to attract capital," Complaint ¶ 15, at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted), and that, "[t]o prevent state interference with this objective, Congress included a preemption provision in the [Airline Act] that prohibits a State from enacting or enforcing any statute, regulation or other provision of law ‘related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier,’ " Complaint ¶ 16, at 3 (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b) ). According to the Complaint, the United States Department of Transportation ("DOT") takes the position that the Airline Act's "preemption provision applies to the field of air ambulance services," Complaint ¶ 17, at 3, and Med Flight, in particular, is chosen for its "favorable estimated transport times," Complaint ¶ 18, at 3.

2. Motion for Judgment Facts .

The Court takes its following recitation of the facts from (i) Med Flight's Motion for Judgment; (ii) Defendant Builders Trust of New Mexico's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed December 19, 2016 (Doc. 14)("Motion for Judgment Response"); and (iii) Gallup Med Flight, LLC's Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 10], filed January 5, 2017 (Doc. 16)("Motion for Judgment Reply"). The Motion for Judgment sets forth these facts as its proffer of "Material Facts," Motion for Judgment at 1–6, which the Motion for Judgment Response then, in part, disputes, see Motion for Judgment Response at 1–6. The Motion for Judgment Response first explains that the Motion for Judgment does not, as is required for a "motion for judgment on the pleadings," set forth "the material facts contained in the pleadings," and, instead, makes a "statement of material facts [that] is replete with new, unsubstantiated assertions ... [and thus] the Court should convert Plaintiff's Motion into a motion for summary judgment." Motion for Judgment Response at 1–2. In the Motion for Judgment Reply, Med Flight "acknowledges that it is the Court's prerogative to consider matters outside the pleadings, attached as exhibits by either party, and thereby convert [Med Flight]'s Motion to a Motion for Summary Judgment." Motion for Judgment Reply at 2 n.2 (citing Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. , 158 F.Supp.3d 1183, 1196 (D.N.M. 2015) (Vázquez, J.) ). The Motion for Judgment Response thus purports to dispute certain facts in the Motion for Judgment's proffer and then sets forth six primary facts that Builders Trust considers "disputed." Motion for Judgment Response at 1–6. Given Med Flight's acquiescence to the notion that it is the Court's prerogative to treat its Motion for Judgment as a motion for summary judgment, see Motion for Judgment Reply at 2 n.2, the Court will address the Motion for Judgment in that manner by, to the best of its ability, construing the motions appropriately. The Court thus provides its second recitation of the facts for the purposes of the Motion for Judgment by setting forth the universe of undisputed facts upon which the movant, Med Flight, asserts it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See D.N.M.L.R. of Civil Procedure 56.1(b).¹

Med Flight, is a company with its principal place of business in Gallup, New Mexico.

See Motion for Judgment ¶ 1, at 1 (setting forth this fact); Motion for Judgment Response at 1 (not disputing this fact). Med Flight provides "fixed and rotary wing aircraft" ambulatory services in New Mexico and neighboring states. Motion for Judgment ¶ 2, at 1 (setting forth this fact). See Motion for Judgment Response at 1–6 (not disputing this fact). Med Flight "performs emergency air transports under the authority granted by the Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’) to operate as a Part 135 air carrier" and thus constitutes an "air carrier" as the term is defined in the "Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ...." Motion for Judgment ¶ 3, at 1–2 (setting forth this fact). See Motion for Judgment Response at 2 (not disputing this fact). Med Flight "was registered with the [DOT] to operate as a Part 298 air taxi operator, providing on-demand air ambulance services." Motion for Judgment ¶ 3, at 1–2 (setting forth this fact). See Motion for Judgment Response at 2 (not disputing this fact).²

On or about October 5, 2015, Woods, a Murphy Builders employee, received emergency medical treatment for a work-related injury at Rehoboth Health. See Motion for Judgment ¶ 4, at 2 (setting forth this fact); Motion for Judgment Response at 1–6 (not disputing this fact). Builders Trust provides "workers' compensation insurance" to Woods' employer, Murphy Builders. Motion for Judgment ¶ 5, at 2 (setting forth this fact). See Motion for Judgment Response at 1–6 (not disputing this fact). Physician Assistant Bodden at Rehoboth Health was unable to treat Woods' medical condition and thus arranged for his transfer; Dr. Kelly authorized the transfer to UNMH. See Motion for Judgment ¶ 6, at 2 (setting forth this fact); Motion for Judgment Response at 1–6 (not disputing this fact). "Based on the distance between...