Bruce A. Watson, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a Connecticutcorporation, Defendant-appellant, 83 F.3d 434 (10th Cir. 1996)

Plaintiff Bruce A. Watson brought this bad faith action in Oklahoma State District Court against the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (hereafter "Aetna"), his employer's worker's compensation insurer. Aetna later removed the case to federal court, but the district court remanded because Mr. Watson's action was "closely tied to the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Oklahoma." See 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) ("A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such state may not be removed to any district court of the United States"). Aetna then noticed an appeal from the district court's remand order and also petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. We denied Aetna's petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ellison, No. 94-5201 (10th Cir. Dec. 14, 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1823 (1995). In our order, we held:

The district court remanded the case because of a defect in removal procedure in that the case was removed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The court therefore does not have jurisdiction to review the district court's order. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 430 U.S. 723 (1977) (per curiam).

Our conclusion we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order is now the law of this case and it is binding in this appeal. We therefore conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal.

Appeal DISMISSED.