automatically deems tort-based retaliation claims to be removable appears more likely to expand the federal courts’ dockets than an approach that deems such claims removable only if their existence is not dependent upon a remedial scheme set forth in a worker’s compensation statute. Congress easily could have used more specific language to prohibit the removal of only non-benefit, non-fault-based, claims, but it did not. Thus, rather than resorting to an ambiguous legislative history, the more logical course is to focus on whether the existence of the worker’s compensation retaliation claim is necessarily dependent upon the administrative mechanisms and/or remedies of the applicable worker’s compensation statute. Cf. Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc., 58 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons discussed above, such
holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law holding that a claim for retaliatory discharge premised on missouris workers compensation law arises under that law for purposes of  1445c because antiretaliation provision also authorized the filing of a civil action for damages the antiretaliation right established by the missouri workers compensation statute is an essential element of plaintiffs claim holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act holding that claim for retaliatory discharge premised on michigans workers compensation statute does not arise under that law because the statute provides neither the mechanisms nor the remedy for this type of suit