The Hon. Greg ory Van Tatenhove, United States D istrict Judg e for the Easter

n District of * Kentucky , sitti ngby

designation. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 11 a0110n .06 No . 08- 6342 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
KE N N ETH D

. SC OT T, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. AMEC KAM TEC H , IN C ., R OB ERT GOR DO N MI LLW OOD , and JO HN D OES 1 and 2, Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF TENN ESSEE

Before: BATCH ELD ER , C hie f Judg e; D AU GH TREY, C irc uitJu dg e; VAN TATENH OVE, D is tr ic t J udg e. *
PER C UR IA M. Plaint if

f Ken net h Scot t app eals the district court’s grantof summ ary jud g ment i n fav or

of defendants AM EC Kamtech, Inc . ( Kamtec h) , a Del aw are c or porati on he ad q ua rte r ed i n At l an ta an d do i ng bu s i ne s s as a g en eral c on trac to r i n Tex as att he t i me of the even t s i n t his litig ation , and Robert Go rdon Mil lw ood , a crane ope rator forme rly employ ed by

Kamtec h. The act ion arose from a w or kpl ace acc ide nt in T e xas i nv olv ing Scot t, w ho was emp loyed byKam tec h ’s s u bcon tracto r, Valley Mecha nical, In c. W hile
re cei v ing w or kers’ co mpensat ion benefit s prov ide d throug h his immedi ate e mploy er , Sc ott08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 2 - also f iled a pe rsona l-injury action against Kam tech for neglig ence . Th e district court he ld thatun d e r ap p lic a b le T e n n e ss e e ch o ice -o f-la w p rin cip le s, th e excl u sive -re m e d y p ro v is ion s of the Tennes see w or kers’ co mpensat io n s ta tute precl uded an addi ti onal aw ard of damag es. Sc ott now chal len g es that deter minat ion , arg uin g thatbec ause Kamtec h i s n ot subj ectto the Tennes see sta tute, he shoul d be per mitt ed to se ek common- law damag es ag ain st the d efendants pursuant to Tex as law

. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t c our t, based on a so mew hat d ifferent anal y si s from the one empl oy ed by the dis tr ic t c our

t.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
At all time s relev antto this litig ation , Scott , a T enn essee resident , w orked as a mil lw ri g ht for

Val ley M echan ic al, a Tennes see cor porati on. In J anuar y 2007, de f e n dant Kamtec h s ubcon tract ed w it h Val ley M echan ic al to a ss ist in the d emoli ti on of an electro static precip itato r at the Colet o Creek Power Station in Fannin , Te x as. T he co ntract
w as formed i n Tennes see, w here Kamtech w as q ual ified to transact bus ine ss , and i t c all ed for Vall ey

Mecha nic al to suppl y

w or kers’ compensat ion cov erag e for the w or kers t hat t he company

se nt t o Tex as. It w as als o ag re ed th at i n the ev ent o f a dis pute, the par ti es to t he
c o n t ra c two u ld b e b o u n d b y T e n n e s s e e la w.
Scott w as dis patc hed by Val ley M echan ic al to pa rt ic ipa te in t h e Tex as proje ct. Demol it ion of the s tr uct ure the re i nv olv ed bot h i nsi de a nd out si de w or k. W hen w or ki ng inside th e pl an t, Sc ott w ou l d ta k e an el ev at or up s ta i rs to pe r for m th e de mo l i ti on duties. W hen inv olv ed in t he remov al of the faci ng on t he out si de of the str uct ure, ho w ev er , Sc ott08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 3 - and hi s c o- w or kers w oul d be li fted up i n a “ man-b ask et,” es sent ial ly a met al cag e att ached to a cran e op erate d by Kamte ch em ployees.
W hile w orking an evening shiftone night at 11:35 p.m ., Scot t and a co-w orker w ere in suc h a man-bas ketoperated by M il lw ood w hen t hey

si g nal ed to hi m to l ow er them to t he g ro und. F or

reason s t hat a re di sput ed i n the record, t houg h notmater ial here, t he bas ket did not desc end slo w ly

and ste adi ly

but, inst ead, w ent int o a f re e- fall for approx imat ely 60 feet unti l Mi ll w ood s topped the bask et abr uptl y before it coul d hit the g ro und. D ue to the force of t he sudde n sto p, Scott’ s co- w or ker su ff ered a fract ured l eg , and Sc ott sus tai ned inj ur ies to his l eft ankl e, hi s l eft knee, hi s s pin e, an d hi s r ig ht s houl der

. Addi ti onal ly , t he pla int iff t est ified in a depos it ion that, as a re sul t of t he ev ents of t hat n igh t, he w as cont inu ing to see a ps y chi atr is t for post -t ra umati c s tress sy ndrome and a ps y chol og is t for
anx iety att ack s.
Al thoug h Sc ott w as ini ti all y treat ed in a Tex as hospi tal emerg ency room shortl y

after
sus tai n in g his inj ur ies , he admit ted d ur ing di sc ov er y thatal l other

treatment he has
re cei v ed w as prov ide d i n Tennes see. H e a ls o tes ti fied th at he had filed for a nd w as re cei v ing w or kers’ co mpensat ion benefit s t hroug h Val ley Me chani cal ’s ins urer , “ inc lud ing medic al and temporar

y dis abi li ty benefits

. . . pursuant to the w or kers’ co mpensat ion l aw of Te nne ssee. ” Despite his receipt of w orkers’ com pen sation ben ef its through Va lley Mechan ical, Scott nev erthel ess f il ed a tor t acti on in Tennessee st ate c our t s eeki ng addi ti onal pay ment08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 4 - o f d a m a ge s fo r p e rs o n a l i n ju ri e s a ll e ge d ly ca u s e d b y t h e n e gl ig e n c e o f K a m t e c h a n d two the n-un nam ed Ka mt ech e m p lo yees, one of w hom turned out to be Millw ood . Th e case
w as eventu ally

remo v ed to fede ral court based upo n the diversi ty of citiz ensh ip. Af

ter all par ti es filed moti ons fo r su m m a ry j udg ment, the d is tr ic t c our t i ss ued a memorand um opi nio n gran ti n g su m m a ry jud gm e n t t o th e de fe n d a n ts an d rul in g th a t t h e excl u sive -re m edy prov is ion of Tenness ee’ s w or kers’ co mpensat ion st atute sh ould b e giv en effect by operati on of secti on 184 of the R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f C o n f l ic t o f L aws . Th e cou rt f u rt h e r co n clu d e d th a t as a “st a tu to ry e m p lo yer, ” Ka m te ch wou ld b e “lia b le fo r [p ro vidi n g]
w or kers’ co mpensat ion i nsurance [onl y] i f the s ubcontr a ct o r fail[ ed] t o prov ide i t for it s employ ees” and thus hel d tha t Sc ott w as bar re d f ro m f u rt h e r re cov er y for h is i nju ri es beca use h e ha d alread y receiv ed p aymen ts in Te nne ssee f rom Va lley Mechan ical’s
w orkers’ comp ensa tion insu rer.
DI SC US SION As previously

note d, th is li tigation be gan as a straightforw ard negligence actio n in sta te cour

t. It w as remov ed to f ederal cour t by the defendants, w ho th en fil ed a moti on for jud g ment on the ple adi ng s, poi nti ng out that the p lai nti ff ’s ex cl usi v e remedy for i nju ry

on the job was pursua nt to the T enn essee W orkers’ Comp ensa tion Act , specif ically Tenness ee C ode An notat ed § 50- 6- 108( a) , w hic h prov ide s that “[ t]he ri g hts and re medies g ra nted to an empl oy ee s ubj ectto [the Act ], on ac countof personal i nju ry or deat h by
acc ide nt,

. . . shal l ex cl ude all other ri g hts and re medies .” The defendants als o not ed th at08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 5 - § 50
- 6- 11 3 of th e Act ma k es a pr i nc i pa l c on trac to r i mmu ne from t or t l i ab i l i ty t o th e s am e extent as an i m m e d ia te em ployer w hen an em ployee of a subco ntract or is i njured w hile “o n, i n, or

about the p re mis es on w hic h the pr inc ipa l cont ra cto r has under tak en to ex ecut e
w or k o r that are otherw is e under the p ri nci pal co ntract or ’s co ntrol or manag ement.” Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 11 3( a) and (d ).
Had the defendants als o i nv oked Tennesse e C o d e Anno tated § 50 -6 -1 15, g ov er nin g the extrater ri tor ial extens ion of the Act, the d is tr ic t c our t mi g ht w ell hav e been in a pos it ion to g ra nt j udg ment t o the defendants o n the pl eadi ng s, see F ederal Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 12( c) , g iv e n the factual al leg ati ons in the c omplai nt. Sec ti on 50- 6- 115, titled “extraterritorial app lication o f chap ter,” provides as follows:
If an em ployee, w hile w orking outside the te rritorial l imits of this stat e, suf fers an i nju ry on acc ount of w hic h the employ ee . . . w oul d hav e been enti tl ed to the b enefits prov ide d by thi s c hapter

had the inj ur

y occur re d w it hin this st ate, the emp loyee . . . shall be ent itled to the be nef it s p ro v ided bythis chap ter; p ro vid e d , t h a ta tt h e t im e o f t h e in ju ry: (1 ) The emplo y ment w as pr inc ipa ll y l ocal iz ed w it hin thi s s tate; (2 ) The cont ra ct of hire w as made i n thi s s tate; or (3 ) If at t he ti me of the i nju ry the inj ured w o rke r was a Tennes see re si dent and t here ex is ted a su bst anti al con n ect ion betw een t his st ate a nd th e par ti cul ar empl oy er

and employ ee rela ti onshi p.
Al thoug h s ubsecti on ( 1) i s i nappl ic abl e to th e c ircums tanc es in thi s c ase – al l the a ctu al
w ork having occurre d i n T e xas an d no t Te nne ssee –the ot her two subsectio ns are re lev ant. The c ontractof hire, w hether se en as Val ley

M echan ic al’ s employ ment of Sc ott08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 6 - or Kamtech’ s h ir ing Val ley M echan ic al as subc ontract or , oc cur re d i n Tennes see; Sc ott w as a resi dent of Tennessee w or ki ng only te mpora ri ly i n Tex as; and the mos t s ubst anti al employ ment rela ti onshi p w as betw een Sc ott and Va ll ey M echan ic al, a ls o a Tennes see reside n t

. T h u s , it is clear f rom th e face o f the ActthatScott’s injury w as com pen sable under the Tenness ee W or kers’ Compen sat ion Act and that, becau se he w as re ce iv ing benefits from hi s i mmediat e empl oy er ’s co mpensat ion insurance car ri er , as prov ide d i n the cont ra ct betw een Va ll ey M echan ic al and Ka mtech, the latter co mpany

w as immune from
common- law

tor t l iab il ity for S cot t’ s i nju ri es. That, per haps, co uld hav e been the end of the li ti g ati on i n thi s i nst ance, bas ed on ra ther st ra ig htforw ard s tatut or y i nter pretati on.
But , w hen the de fend ant s f a iled imm edia tely to invoke section 50-6-11 5 in the ir request for j ud g me nt on th e pl ea di ng s , th e pl ai nt i ff fi l ed i n op po s i ti on to th e R ul e 12(c)
m o ti o n , in je ct in g int o th e pro ce e d in gs wha t ca n o n ly be de sc rib e d as a le gal red he rrin g. Conte ndin g tha t Te nne s s ee’s w orkers’ comp ensa tion law and tha t of Te x as w ere ost ensi bly

di ff ere n t in a t l eastone re spec t and thatthi s d ifferenc e w as mater ial to the q ue s t i o n o f K a mt e c h ’ s c o mm o n - l a w l i a b i l i t y fo r h i s i n j u r i e s , t h e p l a i n t i ff i n s i s t e d t h a tthe district court w as faced w ith a cho ice-of-law dilemm a tha t presen ted a c a s e o f f irst i mp r e s s i o n i n Te n n e s s e e . Th e d i s t r i c t c o u rt b o u g h t t h e a rg u me n t a n d r u l e d t h a t a dispo sition on the plead ings w as inap prop riate be cause “the relevant legal stand ard [i nv o l v i n g c h o i c e o f l a w] r e q u i r e d t h e C o u rt t o c o n s i d e r i n fo r ma t i o n o u t s i de of the ple adi ng s.”08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 7 - W hen t he di str ic t j udg e ag ain ca me to cons ide r the same is sue in re spons e to t he par ti es’ moti ons for summar y jud g ment, he eng ag ed in a rather so phi sti cat ed c hoi ce- of-l aw anal y si s a nd ul ti matel y det e rm in ed th at Tennes see’ s s tatut e s houl d prev ail

. W e ag re e, alt houg h w e do so on th e i nter pretati on of the Tenness ee Actse t outabov e, an d w it hout
re sor t t o a rev iew

of the l aw

of Tex as.
CO NC LU SION
T he jud gmen t of

the district cou rt is AFFIRMED.08-6342

Sc ott v . A ME C Ka mte c h, In c ., e t al

.

- 8 - A LI CE M . B A

TC HE LD ER , C hi ef

Ju dg e. I concur.