McConnell, B. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.
221 A.3d 221
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Beonca McConnell sued B. Braun entities (BMI, BIS, B. Braun France) in Philadelphia in 2017 alleging a permanently implanted VenaTech IVC filter (implanted in Michigan, 2003) failed and caused injury discovered by CT in 2015.
- B. Braun France designed/manufactured the filter in France; BMI/BIS imported, marketed, distributed the device in the U.S.; BMI/BIS maintain corporate offices in Pennsylvania (Lehigh County).
- BMI and BIS (later joined by B. Braun France) moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens, proposing Texas (plaintiff's residence) or Michigan (implant site) as alternate forums, and stipulated to jurisdiction/waived statute-of-limitations defenses if dismissed.
- At the hearing BIS submitted affidavits identifying Lehigh County employees as potential trial witnesses; those employees said trial in Philadelphia would be burdensome.
- The trial court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds, finding Pennsylvania had little interest and witnesses/evidence favored another forum; Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for forum non conveniens was proper | Trial court misapplied law; Braun failed to show Pennsylvania inconvenient | Relevant conduct occurred outside PA (TX resident, MI surgery, device made in France); other forums more convenient | Vacated: trial court abused discretion; defendants did not meet burden of proving "weighty reasons" to disturb plaintiff's forum choice |
| Whether the trial court shifted the burden to plaintiff | Defendants must prove private/public factors; court improperly presumed facts and shifted burden | Court relied on apparent inconveniences and remoteness | Held abuse: burden rests with defendants; court may not assume facts not in record |
| Whether Pennsylvania contacts (BIS/BMI employees in Lehigh County) should be weighed | Presence of BIS/BMI employees who handled marketing/distribution supports PA forum | Defendants argued affidavits were offered only for transfer, not dismissal; ties outside PA predominate | Held those affidavits were material and the court erred by discounting them; they support PA as at least equally convenient |
| Whether public‑interest and choice‑of‑law concerns favor dismissal | PA has an interest because defendants market/distribute from PA; applying TX law is not a barrier (laws similar) | PA lacks relation to injury; subpoena/presence of out‑of‑state witnesses and applying foreign law counsels dismissal | Held court improperly disregarded PA's public interest and did not show choice‑of‑law or administrative concerns made PA unsuitable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jessop v. ACF Indus., LLC, 859 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. 2004) (forum non conveniens requires "weighty reasons" and an available alternative forum)
- Poley v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 779 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. 2001) (dismissal appropriate only where justice strongly militates in favor)
- Farley v. McDonnell Douglas Truck Servs., Inc., 638 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 1994) (lists private/public factors for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 160 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1960) (private factors include access to proof and compulsory process)
- D'Alterio v. N.J. Transit Rail Ops., Inc., 845 A.2d 850 (Pa. Super. 2004) (public/private factors guide forum non conveniens inquiry)
- Vaughan Estate of Vaughan v. Olympus Am., Inc., 208 A.3d 66 (Pa. Super. 2019) (difficulties for plaintiff in securing evidence do not justify overriding forum choice)
- Humes v. Eckerd Corp., 807 A.2d 290 (Pa. Super. 2002) (defendant bears burden; court may not presuppose facts against plaintiff)
- Bochetto v. Piper Aircraft Co., 94 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2014) (plaintiff's forum choice afforded deference; less when plaintiff is nonresident)
- Bochetto v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park, 151 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2016) (abuse of discretion where court engages in one‑sided factor analysis)
- Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. 2006) (state has interest where defendants market products within the Commonwealth)
- Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., 855 A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. 2004) (contrasting facts where corporate ties and witness locations did not support Pennsylvania)
- Hunter v. Shire US, Inc., 992 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 2010) (marketing/sales activities in PA are relevant to public interest)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania products‑liability law aligns with Second Restatement; relevant to choice‑of‑law considerations)