FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 19 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DANIEL A. HAMRICK, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY; PAULA 

GREATHOUSE, Director of Kansas 

Workers Compensation Division; 

SANDY PRAEGER, Commissioner of 

Kansas Insurance Department, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-3182 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-4202-JAR) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LUCERO, l\'IcKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Daniel A. Hamrick, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his suit 

against Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company ("Farmers Alliance"), Sandy 

Praeger, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner, and Paula Greathouse, the Director 

The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant 

to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). This order and judgment is 

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and 

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and 

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-3182 Document: 010110562707 Date Filed: 04/19/2005 Page: 1
of the Kansas Workers Compensation Division.' Hamrick sought monetary 

damages and a temporary restraining order in district court for alleged 

constitutional violations and alleged violations of the Kansas Workers 

Compensation Act. 

Hamrick suffered a heart attack while on a work assignment and filed for 

workers compensation benefits. He was awarded benefits by a workers 

compensation administrative law judge ("ALJ"). The workers compensation 

appeals board ("Board") affirmed the ALJ' s decision in 1997 and the Kansas 

Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's decision. In November 2000, Hamrick 

wrote to Farmers Alliance and demanded payment of the 1997 award, but to no 

avail. 

In an action ostensibly independent from his efforts to enforce the 1997 

award, Hamrick then filed an application for post-award medical benefits. After a 

hearing on Hamrick's application, the ALJ issued a decision granting limited 

relief, which Hamrick appealed. On appeal, the Board partially reversed the 

ALJ's order and granted penalties for Farmers Al1iance's failure to pay the 1997 

award and granted reimbursement for additional medical expenses. Because the 

1997 award order remained valid and could be enforced in state court, the Board 

declined to enter a second order to pay the medical expenses. The Board then 

1 Hamrick voluntarily dismissed his claims against defendant Kenneth Hursh. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3182 Document: 010110562707 Date Filed: 04/19/2005 Page: 2
reminded Hamrick of the enforcement provisions contained in the workers 

compensation act: 

The employee may maintain an action in the district court of the 

county where the cause of action arose for the collection of such past 

due disability compensation and medical compensation, any civil 

penalties due under this section and reasonable attorney fees incurred 

in connection with the action. 

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-512a(b ). 

In affirming the Board's decision, the Kansas Court of Appeals held that 

Hamrick's due process rights were not violated by the delays in the workers 

compensation proceedings. Further, the court of appeals concluded that the 

delays in the proceedings were in large part attributable to Hamrick. The decision 

also explained that Hamrick could have filed an enforcement action on his award 

in state court as early as February 1997. 

In May 2003, Hamrick suffered another heart attack. He then filed another 

application for post-award medical benefits in which he requested all medical 

expenses associated with the May 2003 heart attack. In addition, Hamrick 

requested a declaration that the expenses awarded in 1997 are still owed. A 

notice of hearing was sent to Hamrick. He filed an application for review and 

modification of the Board's earlier decision, and another notice of hearing was 

sent to him. He then filed this action in federal court and filed a motion for a 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-3182 Document: 010110562707 Date Filed: 04/19/2005 Page: 3
temporary restraining order to restrain the workers compensation division from 

proceeding with his administrative hearings. 

Proceedings against Praeger and Greathouse were dismissed; the district 

court concluded that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred the suit and that 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), counsels abstention because there is an 

ongoing state administrative proceeding that would provide an adequate forum to 

hear Hamrick's constitutional claims, and the state proceeding relates to a matter 

traditionally resolved by state law - workers compensation. As to Farmers 

Alliance, the court first concluded that the insurance company was not acting 

under color of state law when it allegedly refused to pay certain claims, and 

therefore did not deprive Hamrick of property without due process. Further, the 

court concluded that the Kansas Workers Compensation Act provides the 

exclusive remedy for workers compensation claims, and therefore Hamrick must 

go through those established procedures to obtain payment from Farmers 

Alliance. 

Before us, Hamrick fundamentally seeks enforcement of the 1997 workers 

compensation award, notwithstanding that he has not availed himself of the 

enforcement procedures set forth in the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. He 

also seeks additional medical expenses for his second heart attack, ignoring that 

his right to benefits for his second heart attack needs to be determined by the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-3182 Document: 010110562707 Date Filed: 04/19/2005 Page: 4
workers compensation board. Rather than follow the appropriate administrative 

and state procedures, Hamrick has filed this action in federal court trying to assert 

federal claims in an apparent attempt to circumvent the state workers 

compensation procedures. The district court dismissed his case for lack of federal 

subject matter jurisdiction and we agree with the district court's dismissal. 

Hamrick' s remedy for the collection of the 1997 award lies in an enforcement 

action in state court pursuant to the Kansas statutory scheme. He must proceed 

with his workers compensation hearing to determine his right to additional 

benefits for his 2003 heart attack. 

Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude 

that the district court correctly decided this case. We therefore AFFIRM the 

challenged decision for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. 

Hamrick filed several "Objections" during the pendency of this appeal. 

These objections do not actually contain any requests for relief. To the extent 

they can be liberally construed to seek sanctions against the appellees, they are 

DENIED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-3182 Document: 010110562707 Date Filed: 04/19/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-3182 Document: 010110562707 Date Filed: 04/19/2005 Page: 6