CA1: ERISA, Workers Comp, and preclusion

Fernandez-Vargas v. Pfizer, No. 06-2632.  There is a long and convoluted history behind this appeal of what amounts to a suit arising from an industrial accident.  But, the issues are fairly simply.  Even though there probably was not actual federal question jurisdiction, since the plaintiff’s later amended claim “plainly” referred to ERISA, the First holds that the District Court had jurisdiction over the case after it was removed.

Secondly, under Puerto Rico’s workers compensation, the employer was entitled to immunity for an assault by a fellow employee when the motive of the shooter “remains unapparent and unexplained.” 

Third, the plaintiff argues that the District Court’s judgment is void, because it failed to appoint the victim’s son as a guardian ad litem under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17©.  But, the argument as to why he should have been appointed doesn’t seem to have been developed.

With little discussion the First concludes that on the summary judgment record, the ERISA claims were not properly exhausted.

The First closes with a discussion of whether actions in the state court should be enjoined.  (It doesn’t exactly say whether it could.)  However, it concludes that the state courts would just apply preclusive doctrines, so there really isn’t a reason for such an injunction.