Opinion ID: 721469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jass' Vicarious Liability Claim Against PruCare for Margulis' Alleged Negligence

Text: 37 While Jass did not allege a denial of benefits claim against PruCare, she did allege that at all times relevant hereto, [Margulis] was ... an agent, servant and/or employee of Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. and that PruCare was vicariously liable for Margulis' actions. Margulis' actions, as discussed above, are appropriately recharacterized as the denial of benefits. Thus, Jass' claim against PruCare for vicarious liability based on Margulis' actions is also a § 502(a) denial of benefits claim. (After all, a corporate plan can only deny benefits through its agents, of which Margulis was one.) 6 As such, it is completely preempted. Therefore the district court also had subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. 38 The district court also dismissed, as preempted, Jass' vicarious liability claim against PruCare for Margulis' alleged negligence because the claim relates to a benefit plan. Again, because the claim against PruCare is a § 502(a) denial of benefits claim, conflict preemption under § 514 is irrelevant. 39 Jass, however, failed to request relief available under ERISA, instead seeking only compensatory damages for her injury, resulting medical expenses, pain and suffering and lost wages. Section 502(a) provides that a beneficiary may only recover benefits due him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan. Thus, if a claim is within the scope of § 502(a), then a participant's ability to recover damages is limited. Rice, 65 F.3d at 640. Monetary damages also do not constitute other appropriate equitable relief under ERISA. Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993) (holding that equitable relief under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA does not include a damages remedy). 40 Nonetheless, since we have recharacterized her complaint as one alleging a denial of benefits, Jass should be given the opportunity to amend her complaint to request appropriate relief under § 502(a). Health Cost Controls v. Skinner, 44 F.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir.1995); Bartholet, 953 F.2d at 1077. In the future, however, artful pleading of an ERISA case to avoid federal jurisdiction may result in dismissal, without an opportunity to amend. Maciosek v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 930 F.2d 536, 541 (7th Cir.1991) (affirming dismissal of ERISA claim deliberately pleaded as state law claim to avoid federal court). See Shannon v. Shannon, 965 F.2d 542, 553 (7th Cir.1992) (contrasting Bartholet and Maciosek, and noting that where counsel deliberately seeks to avoid a federal cause of action by filing only state law claims in a state court, the case ... begs dismissal.). 41