No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Developments in Health Law: Civil Procedure: First Circuit Holds it Unreasonable to Hale Hospitals into Foreign Forums Simply for Accepting Out-of-State Patients — Harlow v. Children's Hospital
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a United States District Court for the District of Maine Judge's decision to dismiss a Maine plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against a Massachusetts hospital defendant for want of personal jurisdiction over the hospital. The Court of Appeals found it unreasonable to hale hospitals into an out-of-state court merely because they accept out-of-state patients.
Plaintiff Danielle Harlow is a Maine resident who suffered a stroke at the age of six while undergoing a medical procedure at Children's Hospital of Boston, Massachusetts (“Children's Hospital”). The stroke, allegedly caused by the Hospital's negligence, led to brain damage resulting in partial paralysis and cognitive and behavioral impairments. The procedure was supposed to treat Harlow's rapid heartbeat, a condition related to her Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. Harlow's pediatrician in Maine recommended that she visit Children's Hospital in Boston to treat her arrhythmia.
- Type
- JLME Column
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006
References
432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Id., at 69.Google Scholar
Id., at 54.Google Scholar
Id., at 58.Google Scholar
Id. The Court does note, in its opinion, that it remained unclear whether Harlow returned to Children's Hospital after her procedure, but pointed out that Harlow did not allege she had returned. Id., at note 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 59.Google Scholar
Id., at 54.Google Scholar
Id., at 54.Google Scholar
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60D (2005).Google Scholar
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 2902 (2005)Google Scholar
Harlow, 432 F.3d, at 54.Google Scholar
Id., at 55.Google Scholar
Id., at 58–59. The Court also briefly addressed the law of the case doctrine. Harlow raised this issue in the District Court as well, arguing that the Maine Superior Court's favorable decision on the personal jurisdiction issue barred Children's Hospital from relitigating the issue in federal court. The Court of Appeals found the doctrine inapplicable primarily because the state court decision on the interlocutory order was not yet the law of the case. The Court then proceeded to address the merits of Harlow's personal jurisdiction argument. Id., at 55–56.Google Scholar
Id., at 57Google Scholar
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 704–A(1) (2005).Google Scholar
Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57.Google Scholar
Id., at 58–60.Google Scholar
Id., at 60–61.Google Scholar
Id., at 64.Google Scholar
Id., at 62. “Harlow's argument in support of specific jurisdiction is that ‘[s]imply stated, but for Children's Hospital's contacts with the state of Maine, Danielle Harlow never would have undergone the surgical procedure that she did, and she never would have suffered her injuries.’”Google Scholar
Id., at 62–63.Google Scholar
Id., at 63.Google Scholar
Id., citing Wright v. Yackley, 459 F.2d 287, 289 (9th Cir. 1972). “In the case of personal services focus must be on the place where the services are rendered, since this is the place of the receiver's (here the patient's) need.” But see Cubbage v. Merchant, 744 F.2d 665, 669–671 (9th Cir. 1984) (refusing to apply the broad language of Wright in the hospital setting where the hospital advertised and circulated telephone directories in the foreign forum).Google Scholar
Harlow, 432 F.3d, at 65.Google Scholar
Id., at 66.Google Scholar
Id., at 65.Google Scholar
Id., at 66.Google Scholar
Id., at 67. “The factors to be considered, known as the ‘Gestalt factors,’ include: (1) the defendant's burden of appearing, (2) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, (4) the judicial system's interest in obtaining the most effective resolution of the controversy, and (5) the common interests of all sovereigns in promoting substantive social policies” (citations omitted).Google Scholar
Id., at 67, 68.Google Scholar
Id., at 68.Google Scholar
Id., at 69.Google Scholar
Id., noting that Harlow's argument concerning “relative convenience and burden is more appropriately dealt with under the law of forum non conveniens or change of venue…. Even under the doctrines of forum non conveniens and change of venue, it is not clear that sheer disparity in wealth is legally relevant, without proof of hardship.”Google Scholar
Id., at 68.Google Scholar