No Jurisdiction Where Foreign Corporation Had No Direct Contacts With Pennsylvania

In the case of Montgomery v. Bobst Mex SA, No. 24-367 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Arteaga, Mag. J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss based upon jurisdictional issues. More specifically, the court found that the Defendant, which was a Swiss corporation, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant sold all of its products, including the one that allegedly injured the Plaintiff, to a New York sole distributor. There was no evidence that the Defendant directed any of its activities at or in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the record otherwise confirmed that there was no direct contacts by the Defendant in Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the court noted that any subsequent sales in the United States was at the discretion of the sole distributor in New York, with no direction being provided to that distributor by the Swiss corporation Defendant.

Although the Swiss Defendant allegedly had knowledge of Pennsylvania end-users of the product, the court found that evidence in this regard, without more, was insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.

In the end, the federal court found that, without evidence of a strong relationship between the Defendant, the forum, and the litigation, the court could not exercise specific jurisdiction over that Swiss corporation as a Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on www.pexels.com.

Jurisdiction Found to Exist in Pennsylvania Due to Multiple Contacts With Pennsylvania

In the case of Duvall v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., No. 24-1920 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2024 McHugh, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional issues.  

The case involved alleged injuries sustained by the Plaintiff when a lift gate on a Ryder truck collapsed.

The Defendant's moved to dismissed the case principally on the grounds that the accident happened in Maryland.

The court noted that, even though the accident in question happened in another state, specific personal jurisdiction existed.   In this regard, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s employer had leased the truck at issue from the Defendant in Pennsylvania. 

It was also noted that the record revealed that the alleged negligent maintenance of the truck, which was allegedly a cause of the accident, occurred in Pennsylvania.   

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff was a Pennsylvania resident and received worker’s compensation benefits from a Pennsylvania employer.

Based on these reasons, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Preliminary Objections Regarding Venue and Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Addressed by Superior Court

In the case of Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., No. 383 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 9, 2024 Collins, J., Stabile, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Collins, J.) (McLaughlin, J. dissenting), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court's granting of a defendant's Preliminary Objections based upon a lack of jurisdiction and also affirmed the dismissal of remaining claims under the doctrine forum non conveniens.

Relative to the issue of jurisdiction, the court found that the Plaintiff asserted no valid basis for jurisdiction over a manufacturer for injuries sustained in a surgery that was completed in a state other than Pennsylvania. 

The court also emphasized that the Defendant was not located in Pennsylvania and the product at issue was never manufactured in the state of Pennsylvania.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff did not assert general jurisdiction and, as such, any arguments based upon the Pennsylvania registration of the corporation to do business were considered to be waived.  The Plaintiff attempted to request a retroactive application of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. regarding jurisdiction over corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania.  However, the Court found that the Plaintiff had waived this issue of general jurisdiction.

In terms of the Plaintiff's efforts to establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant, the court additionally noted that the fact that the payment for the product at issue was sent to a Pennsylvania lock box was insufficient to support a claim of specific personal jurisdiction against the Defendant. The court emphasized that the lock box had nothing to do with the product liability issue.

The court agreed that the Defendants did not otherwise purposefully direct their activities towards Pennsylvania. Also, the Plaintiff’s claims did not, in any meaningful way, arise out of the use of the lock box. Moreover, the court noted that the lock box belonged to the manufacturer’s bank and not toe the Defendant manufacturer. The court reasoned that if the presence of an independent product distributor is insufficient to support jurisdiction, then the presence of an independent lock box also cannot be sufficient.

Relative to the issues raised under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court found it was also proper for the trial court to have dismissed the case on these grounds as well. In this matter, it was established that every witness was located out of state as were all of the Defendant’s alleged activities related to the lawsuit. The Superior Court agreed that the Defendant had demonstrated the hardship that justified disturbing the Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

The court in Kennedy additionally ruled that the fact that a corporate Defendant had headquarters in Pennsylvania, in and of itself, was not enough to defeat a motion filed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens seeking a transfer of venue.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Eastern District Court Dismisses German Office of Porsche From Products Liability Claim Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

In the case of Riad v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 18-5175 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023 Pratter, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had purchased a used Porsche from a non-Porsche-brand dealer. Years later, after noting problems with the vehicle’s engine and, the Plaintiff was instructed by Porsche to bring it to the nearest dealership for inspection and repair.

On the way to the dealership, smoke allegedly began coming through the AC vents into the passenger area allegedly causing the Plaintiff to suffer permanent lung damage and asthma.

The Plaintiff filed a products liability claim against or Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and Porsche AG.

Both Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court had previously ruled that it could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Porsche Cars North America.

The court granted Porsche AG’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court first ruled that it did not have general personal jurisdiction over Porsche AG as that entity was not “at home” in Pennsylvania.  Rather, that company was incorporated in, and had its headquarters in, Germany.

The court denied to find that Porsche North America was a mere alter ego of Porsche, AG, which would have permitted the court to impute general personal jurisdiction.

Rather, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that the two entities were separate legal entities that interacted with each other pursuant to arm’s length agreement and that neither party exercised dominion or control over the other. 

The court additionally stated that there was an agreement between the parties that expressly disclaimed any authority for Porsche North America to act as an agent or legal representative of Porsche AG.

The court also found that it lacked specific jurisdiction over Porsche AG in that there was no evidence that that entity had purposefully directed its business activities in Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 16, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Clement Roy on www.unsplash.com.   

Court Grants Preliminary Objections Regarding Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation

In the case of Terry v. Aesculap Implant Sys., No. 2018-C-1938 (C.P. Leh. Co. Aug. 8, 2022 Caffrey, J.), the court granted a foreign Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis that the court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over the Defendant.

This matter arose out of claims by a number of Plaintiffs alleging that a knee implant device had been negligently designed and manufactured by a German company.  According to the Opinion, the knee surgeries at issue actually took place in the State of Texas.

As to general jurisdiction, the court found that the jurisdiction requirements were not met under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5301(a)(1).  Under that statute, a court in Pennsylvania may exercise general jurisdiction over an individual non-resident Defendant when that Defendant is either present in Pennsylvania when process is served or domicile in Pennsylvania at the time when process is served, or where that Defendant consents to the jurisdiction of the court. Neither of these scenarios were implicated under the facts of this case.

With regards to the issue of specific jurisdiction, the court found that the Defendant lacked sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Pennsylvania.

In the end, the court granted the Preliminary Objections and dismissed a Joinder Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 13, 2022).

Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Found to Exist Based on Actions of the Distributor for the Corporation

In the products liability case of Merino v. Repak, B.V., No. 135 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Dec. 6, 2022 Bowes, J., McCaffery, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by McCaffery, J.), a Defendant company operating out of the Netherlands filed an appeal from a trial court Order overruling its Preliminary Objection to personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s Order.

In so ruling, the Superior Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that the trial court had erred and abused its discretion when the trial court exercised personal jurisdiction over the foreign company based upon either the Defendant’s independent contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or its relationship with a Co-Defendant company.

The Superior Court noted that the trial court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer with no minimum contacts of its own within the forum. The court found that, based upon the actions and contacts of the foreign manufacturer’s exclusive distributor, with whom the manufacturer had a close agency relationship, jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer was warranted.

The Superior Court found that the Co-Defendant distributor had acted as an agent for the foreign manufacturer by selling the manufacturers products to customers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 27, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Elena Mozhvilo at www.unsplash.com.

Federal Middle District Court Addresses Jurisdiction Over Accident That Occurred in Virginia

In the case of Grady v. Rothwell, No. 4:22-CV0-00428 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction in a trucking accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Virginia.

The Defendant tractor trailer driver was not a resident of Pennsylvania, nor was La-Z-Boy Logistics, which was the company for which the driver was driving.

Judge Brann found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction as there was no evidence or allegation that the corporate Defendant was “at home” in Pennsylvania. Personal jurisdiction was also not found due to the fact that the subject motor vehicle accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann 
M.D. Pa.

Judge Brann ruled that the fact that La-Z-Boy did business nationwide, including Pennsylvania, was insufficient, in and of itself, to confer general personal jurisdiction over that party, as there was no allegation that the company had any locations or employees in Pennsylvania.

The court additionally found that there was no basis to assert specific personal jurisdiction as the underlying motor vehicle accident occurred in the State of Virginia.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order may be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 1, 2022).

Source of top image:  photo by Josiah Farrow from www.pexels.com.

Plaintiff Failed To Establish Jurisdiction Over German Division of BMW

In the case of Mahurin v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-01351 (W.D. Pa. March 18, 2021 Hardy, J.), the court found that the Plaintiff had failed to establish jurisdiction over the Defendant, BMW, and as such, the Plaintiff’s claims against that Defendant were dismissed in this products liability action. 

According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff alleged that the airbag released sharp metal fragments that penetrated his neck and chest area and caused additional injury. The Plaintiff sued BMW for products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.

The Plaintiff asserted that BMW, a German company, was the parent company of another BMW entity, a Delaware limited liability company with a principle place of business in New Jersey. That Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court granted the Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden to establish specific personal jurisdiction. The court generally noted that the Plaintiff failed to show any purposeful availment of the Defendant in terms of activity and Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 6, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Artiom Vallat on www.unsplash.com.

No Jurisdiction Found Over Out-of-State Contractor in Construction Litigation Case

In the case of Bean Sprouts LLC v. Life Cycle Const. Serv., LLC, No. 1467 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Feb. 17, 2022 Panella, P.J., Dubow, J., McCaffery, J.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court did not err when it found that the Defendant did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Pennsylvania for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a construction contract dispute.

The Plaintiff was a construction and excavating company and the Defendant was a contractor engaged in construction projects throughout the country.

The Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action in Pennsylvania. The Defendant contractor filed Preliminary Objections asserting that it did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Pennsylvania such that a Pennsylvania court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

The trial court sustained the Preliminary Objections and the appellate court affirmed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 8, 2022).

Photo by skitterphoto on www.pexels.com.

Specific Jurisdiction Issues Addressed in a Trucking Accident Case Involving a Canadian Trucker

In the case of Allen v. Foxway Transp., No. 4:21-CV-00156 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2022 Brann, C.J.), the court denied various Motions to Dismiss and/or To Transfer Venue and, in doing so, provided a detailed discussion of the current state of federal law on the issue of specific jurisdiction.

In particular, the court addressed the issue of the required minimum contacts sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Pennsylvania over a trucking company and/or a broker with regards to hauling freight headed for Pennsylvania.

Judge Brann’s Opinion contains an analysis of the “alien-venue rule” as it relates to the Canadian Defendant in this cause of action. The court additionally addressed the distinctions between requests for venue transfer under §1406(a) and 1404(a) in the U.S. Code.

In his Opinion, Judge Brann also touched upon other issues such as vicarious liability, allegations of joint venture, and claims for punitive damages in this trucking accident case.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Harry P. McGrath, Jr., of this Kingston, Pennsylvania law firm of Fellerman & Ciarimboli for bringing this case to my attention.

General Jurisidiction Fails But Specific Jurisdiction Prevails Over Trucking Defendants

In the case of Allen v. Foxway Transp., Inc., No. 4:21-CV-00156 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2022 Brann, C.J.), the court denied a Motion to Dismiss based upon general personal jurisdiction issues raised in a tractor trailer accident case that involved Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and out-of-state Defendants.  The accident actually happened in New York state.

The court found that there was no basis for general personal jurisdiction over either of the Defendants in this case.  Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann noted that general jurisdiction exists over foreign defendants when their contact with Pennsylvania is so systematic and continuous as to render them at home in Pennsylvania.  Here, the court found that the frequent freight hauling into Pennsylvania is simply the regular course of doing business which is insufficient to trigger jurisdiction over a Defendant.

The court additionally reiterated a rule that the designation of a Pennsylvania registered agent as a federally regulated motor carrier also did not serve to create general jurisdiction.

However, Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled that, since the Defendant was shipping freight that was destined to go to Pennsylvania and given that the trucker had injured Pennsylvania residents during the course of the trip, there was enough case-specific contacts by the Defendant to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant trucking company and driver even though the subject accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the other Defendant, who had brokered numerous Pennsylvania shipments, including the one at issue in this case, was found to have the same state-specific contacts with Pennsylvania to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over that Defendant as well.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck from the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Addy Mae from www.unsplash.com.

Court Finds No Personal Jurisidiction Over Cruise Line Where Plaintiff's Injury Did Not Occur In Pennsylvania

In the case Knox v. Seven Seas Cruises, No. 525, August Term 2020 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 21, 2021 New, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to confirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

According to the Opinion, the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the cruise line grew out of a dispute over the Plaintiff’s request for a cash refund. 

The Plaintiffs filed suit in Philadelphia County on the claims presented and asserted that the Pennsylvania trial court had specific jurisdiction because the financial harm that the Plaintiff allegedly suffered related to the cruise line’s contacts in Pennsylvania, specifically, the company’s solicitation of the Plaintiffs’ business.

The cruise line filed Preliminary Objections raising the issue of personal jurisdiction.

The court ruled that, while the Defendant solicited business from Pennsylvania, including the Plaintiffs’ business, the court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over this foreign corporation because the allegedly injury-causing incident involving the Defendant did not occur in this State of Pennsylvania. The court otherwise found that the combination of the Plaintiffs’ Pennsylvania residency and the Defendant’s solicitation of business in Pennsylvania was not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

As such, the trial court requested that the Superior Court affirm its decision on appeal.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 21, 2021).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Hands Down Decision on Personal Jurisdiction Issues

In the case of Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 7 EAP 2019 (Pa. Oct. 21, 2019) (Op. by Baer, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed jurisdictional issues in a pelvic mesh products liability case.   In the end, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on appeal.  

The case presented a jurisdictional challenge in a matter involving a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by an Indiana resident who had a surgical procedure performed in Indiana and who alleged injuries from an implanted pelvic mesh that was manufactured by New Jersey corporate defendants.

With regards to issues pertaining to personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the court reaffirmed the rule that a Defendant challenging personal jurisdiction has the burden of supporting that objection.   

The Court provided a detailed summary of the current status of the law pertaining to personal jurisdiction which was noted to be in a state of flux.  The Court reviewed several notable United States Supreme Court Opinions, the most recent of which was in the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2107).   Concisely, after the Bristol-Myers case, the following three (3) elements must be met in order for specific personal jurisdiction to lie over a defendant:  

First, a defendant must have purposefully conducted activities within the forum state, or must have purposefully directed its conduct towards the forum state.  

Second, the plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s activities in the forum state or directed towards the forum state.  

Third, overall, a finding of jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair and reasonable.  

Here, the court found that the Defendant’s suit-related contacts justified jurisdiction in that the particular Defendant supervised the design and manufacturing process of its product in Pennsylvania in collaboration with a Pennsylvania company.  The court additionally noted that this particular Defendant also worked with a Pennsylvania physician in developing and marketing the product which, in this case, was a medical product used to treat prolapsed pelvic organs.  

In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took a wider, big picture view in its analysis and determined that the case as a whole established ties between the defendant's actions in the forum state and the litigation.  See Op. at p. 36-37.

In favoring the Plaintiffs' position, as it has been wont to do, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a more narrow analysis of the jurisidictional issue as such a contrary view "could unnecessarily restrict access to justice for plaintiffs."  See Op. at p. 36.

The Majority Opinion of this 6-1 decision can be viewed HERE.

The Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Court Finds No Jurisdiction Over Legal Malpractice Claims

In the case of Dakota Oil Processing, LLC v. Hayes, No. 2018-10444-CT (C.P. Chester Co. April 16, 2020 Tunnell, J.), the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s legal malpractice Complaint after finding that neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction existed over the Defendants.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a limited liability company formed to develop and operate a crude oil refinery in North Dakota. In order to raise money in this endeavor, the Plaintiff entered into a collateral transaction loan with a venture financing firm. After the Plaintiff allegedly lost a $2.5 million dollar escrow payment, it filed this lawsuit for legal malpractice. 

The court noted that, generally speaking, it could exercise personal jurisdiction over a Defendant based upon either general jurisdiction or more specific, case-linked jurisdiction. 

Under the rules pertaining to general jurisdiction, a party can be sued in any state court for any claim regardless of where the underlying actions of the claim occurred where a Defendant can be found to be “at home” in the forum state. Under issues pertaining to specific jurisdiction, a party could be hailed into court on issues deriving from or connecting with the very controversy that established jurisdiction.

The court noted that one Defendant was a resident of Virginia and did not consent to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Another Defendant was a partnership formed in another state and which had also not consented to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. The court ruled that none of the Defendants at issue were registered to do business in Pennsylvania and did not carry on any continuous or systematic part of its business in Pennsylvania. As such, no general personal jurisdiction was found. 

Under the issues of specific personal jurisdiction, the court found that no Defendants had purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within Pennsylvania or purposefully directed its conduct in Pennsylvania. The court also noted that, the Plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to any activities by the Defendant within Pennsylvania. Lastly, the court also noted that, in order for jurisdiction to be fair and reasonable, a finding of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 

The court found that the contacts relied upon by the Plaintiff in an effort to establish specific jurisdiction were very minimal and consisted only of limited email and telephone contacts, none of which communications had anything to do with the Plaintiff’s claims. 

As such, the court found that there was neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction to be exercised over the moving Defendants. Accordingly, the Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice were sustained. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 1, 2020).

Should you need an attorney to serve as an expert witness in your legal malpractice case, either on the plaintiff's side or the defense side, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net or at 570-319-5899.

Sloan Kettering Hospital (NY) Haled Into Court in Philadelphia

In the case of Estate of Albert v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hospital, Inc., June Term, No. 1122 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 31, 2020 Massiah-Jackson, J.), the court ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state Defendant after finding that the Defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania such that the Defendant could have reasonably anticipated being sued in Pennsylvania.

This matter arose out of a medical malpractice action against Sloan Kettering Hospital, which is located in New York. 

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged corporate negligence and vicarious liability claims against multiple Defendants with regards to their actions in providing the decedent, David Albert, with allegedly false information about his medical imaging results. The case involved the results of an MRI which the decedent had completed in New York. At all relevant times, the decedent was a resident of Pennsylvania. 

Defendant Sloan Kettering moved for summary judgment arguing that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over it. That Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had failed to establish any action taken by Sloan Kettering or its agents that caused harm to the decedent in Pennsylvania. 

The Plaintiff responded by arguing that negligent claims involved injuries that occurred while the decedent was present in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff stated that Sloan Kettering contacted the decedent in Pennsylvania and allegedly provided him with false information about his MRI results. Sloan Kettering then allegedly failed to timely forward those imaging results to the decedent’s physicians, who were located in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff also alleged that Sloan Kettering promised to coordinate the decedent’s care but that it had failed to communicate with his medical providers who were located in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff alleged that these steps, and others, allegedly resulted in harm to the decedent in Pennsylvania. 

The court noted that due process law permits specific jurisdiction over a defendant to be found where a defendant engaged in numerous contacts with a forum state. 

The court noted that Sloan Kettering had promoted a treatment program and had promised the decedent and his family to coordinate his care and monitor his medical services. The court also noted that Sloan Kettering had engaged in national marketing and recruitment for its clinical trials, including activities in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. 

The court in this matter found that specific jurisdiction over the Defendant hospital was established based upon the hospital’s extensive contacts with Pennsylvania. After finding that the Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that the hospital allegedly caused harm to the decedent in Pennsylvania its acts and omissions, the court concluded that Sloan Kettering should have reasonably anticipated being called into court in Pennsylvania. 

As such, the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment on jurisdictional issues was denied. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 10, 2020).