Eric L. Patterson v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al.

Cleveland, Ohio, insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff claiming that UnitedHealth Group, his insurer and health plan administrator. In short, Patterson claims that United collected reimbursement for medical expenses paid on Patterson’s behalf even though his health plan gave United no such right.

Patterson sued United and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

* * *

ERISA, however, is a rare exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Gardner v.
Heartland Indus. Partners, LP, 715 F.3d 609, 612 (6th Cir. 2013). The law has such
“extraordinary pre-emptive power . . . that [it] converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987). In other words, “any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy” can be removed to federal court, regardless of whether ERISA shows up on the face of the complaint. Davila, 542 U.S. at 209. Understood that way, complete preemption is better described as a jurisdictional doctrine than a typical preemption defense. Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872, 879 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing the “misleadingly named doctrine” is “more aptly described as a jurisdictional doctrine (citation modified)). We note that complete preemption differs from “express preemption” under ERISA, the latter being a statutory creation that does afford a traditional preemption defense, but not a basis for removal. See Gardner, 715 F.3d at 612 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)). The parties agree that this appeal concerns only complete preemption.
Wit

Dismissed.

Affirmed