Johnson v. Creighton University
114 F. Supp. 3d 688
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Kayla Johnson (Illinois resident) had a skin lesion biopsied at St. Margaret’s Health Center (Peru, IL); pathologist Eric Santos sent slides to Creighton Medical Laboratories (Nebraska) for consult.
- Dr. Deba Sarma (Nebraska physician employed by Creighton, licensed in Illinois and holding courtesy clinical privileges at St. Margaret’s) reviewed the slides at Creighton and issued a final report diagnosing spitz nevus and stating "no suggestion of melanoma." He faxed the report to St. Margaret’s and discussed it by phone with Dr. Santos.
- Dr. Santos relied on the Creighton/Dr. Sarma report in treating Johnson; Johnson later developed metastatic melanoma and sued Dr. Sarma and Creighton University for negligence (including vicarious liability against Creighton).
- Creighton had an ongoing relationship with Dr. Santos’ practice (pricing agreement; periodic slide submissions) and various affiliations, alumni, and minor recruiting/marketing contacts in Illinois.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; the district court denied both motions, finding specific jurisdiction and proper venue in the Northern District of Illinois.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Dr. Sarma | Dr. Sarma purposefully directed activities at Illinois by reviewing an Illinois patient’s slide, issuing a final diagnosis naming the patient and requesting clinic, faxing the report to Illinois, and discussing it with the Illinois physician | Dr. Sarma argued contacts were insufficient (no nationwide practice, no control over Santos’ reliance, minimal ties) | Court denied dismissal: contacts (reporting, phone call, Illinois license/privileges, employer billing arrangement) support specific jurisdiction over Dr. Sarma |
| Whether Illinois courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Creighton University | Creighton is vicariously liable for Sarma’s conduct and had ongoing dealings with Dr. Santos, so Creighton is subject to jurisdiction | Creighton argued it did not purposefully avail itself of Illinois and that Santos’ independent actions sever ties | Court denied dismissal: Creighton’s relationship with Santos, periodic pathology work, and the fact Sarma acted as Creighton employee support specific jurisdiction |
| Whether venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois | Substantial part of events occurred in Illinois: biopsy, receipt of consult report by Santos, reliance and treatment in Illinois | Defendants argued the alleged tortious act didn’t occur in Illinois and Santos (not Sarma) made treatment decisions | Court held venue proper: events forming the historical predicate (reporting and its effects felt in Illinois) satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kostal v. Pinkus Dermatopathology Lab., P.C., 827 N.E.2d 1031 (Ill. App. 2005) (out-of-state lab diagnosing Illinois patient can be subject to Illinois jurisdiction where report was sent to and relied upon in Illinois)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (forum contacts must make it reasonable to be haled into court)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (limits on general jurisdiction; defendant must be essentially at home in forum)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. test for specific jurisdiction: purposeful availment, claim arises from forum contacts, and fairness)