BIGGERS, NEAL B., Judge
This cause comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion to remand. The court has duly considered the parties' memoranda and exhibits and is ready to rule.
The plaintiff, an insured under a long-term disability insurance policy, brought this action in state court alleging that the defendants have wrongfully withheld monthly disability insurance benefits to offset social security disability benefits previously paid to the plaintiff. Defendants CIGNA Group Insurance and Life Insurance Company of North America [collectively referred to as CIGNA] removed this cause on the ground of federal question jurisdiction. The notice of removal alleges that the complaint asserts a claim for disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan and is exclusively governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA], 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff's long-term disability insurance coverage is provided under an ERISA plan. CIGNA admits in its answer that "it is offsetting monthly disability payments to recoup the overpayment made to Plaintiff by CIGNA as a result of Plaintiff's receipt of a primary Social Security award." The threshold jurisdictional issue is whether the complaint raises an issue of federal law under the well-pleaded complaint doctrine. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63, 95 L.Ed.2d 55, 63 (1987). Under the complete preemption doctrine, "a statute's preemptive force may `convert an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.'" Kramer v. Smith Barney, 80 F.3d 1080, 1082-83 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Taylor, 481 U.S. at 65, 95 L.Ed.2d at 64). The complete preemption doctrine does not operate "unless federal law also supplants state law with a federal claim." Cook-Fort Worth Children's Medical Center v. Wal-Mart Associates Group Health Plan, 823 F. Supp. 418, 420 (N.D.Tex. 1993). See Kramer, 80 F.3d at 1083 ("We must determine whether the action is preempted by ERISA and, if so, whether ERISA displaces the state law causes of action asserted.") (emphasis added).
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint to establish federal question jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 96 L.Ed.2d 318, 327 (1987). Under the rule, the plaintiff is "the master of the claim" and "may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." Id.
Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), a civil action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits due to 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. ERISA's civil enforcement provisions under section 1132(a)(1)(B) displace and, thus, completely preempt state law claims that fall within their scope. Taylor, 481 U.S. at 66-67, 95 L.Ed.2d at 65 (causes of action within ERISA's civil enforcement provisions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) are necessarily federal in character and therefore arise under federal law), construed in McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 517-18 n. 34 (5th Cir. 1998).
The plaintiff asserts that he "is not seeking to recovery [sic] future benefits, as these benefits have already been determined." CIGNA alleges in its answer that "it is offsetting monthly long term disability payments in an amount of $288.68 until the total amount of $37,679.50 overpayment is recouped." The monthly amount of disability benefits is apparently fixed but the plaintiff's entitlement to $37,679.50 of past and future payments is clearly disputed. The complaint seeks inter alia "a Declaratory Judgment determining the rights of the parties" and an order directing the defendants to make timely disability payments and "to refund and pay to the Plaintiff those amounts wrongfully withheld." The complaint alleges that CIGNA has "breached the contract" by "providing no payment to the Plaintiff for his entitled benefits." The plaintiff seeks additional payments under the parties' ERISA plan and the existence of an enforceable reimbursement agreement as a term of the subject plan is in dispute. For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the plaintiff, in his capacity as an ERISA participant, does seek relief available under section 1132(a)(1)(B). The plaintiff seeks "to recover [withheld] benefits due to him under the terms of his plan [and] to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan."
The plaintiff has received an award from the Social Security Administration in the sum of $37,679.50.
The complaint alleges that the "Defendants have no written re-imbursement agreement executed by the Plaintiff." CIGNA's answer alleges that "reimbursement was clearly and unambiguously provided for [in] the policy and plan upon which Plaintiff bases his claim for relief in the Complaint herein."
Since the court has federal question jurisdiction over this cause, the instant motion to remand should be denied. An order will issue accordingly.