Opinion ID: 721469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jurisdiction Over Jass' Vicarious Liability Claim Against PruCare for Dr. Anderson's Alleged Negligence

Text: 19 Jass claims vicarious liability against PruCare for Dr. Anderson's alleged negligence. Specifically she claims that because PruCare listed Dr. Anderson as a preferred caregiver (apparently one who would charge less), PruCare stands in his shoes and is thus liable for his negligent performance. These claims are identical to the claims brought in Rice; both sets of claims sought recovery from an ERISA plan administrator for vicarious liability based on the alleged negligence of a listed physician. 20 A claim brought against a plan administrator for vicarious liability of an actual or apparent agent, while subject to conflict preemption under § 514(a), see infra 18-23, is not subject to the jurisdictional doctrine of complete preemption under § 502(a). Rice, 65 F.3d at 646. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding that it had federal question jurisdiction over these claims against PruCare based on ERISA preemption. Id. 21 Whether the negligence claim against Margulis and the claim of vicarious liability against PruCare for Margulis' alleged negligence are subject to complete preemption is another question, and another potential basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore before we determine whether the vicarious liability claim against PruCare for Dr. Anderson's alleged negligence should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we must first determine whether there is another basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction under that claim. 22