Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
836 F.3d 643
6th Cir.2016Background
- Tamesha Means miscarried at ~18 weeks after receiving limited care at Mercy Health, a Catholic hospital in western Michigan; placental pathology later confirmed two acute bacterial infections.
- Mercy Health discharged Means multiple times without offering pregnancy termination or fully disclosing risks; hospital officials later attributed inaction to the USCCB "Directives."
- Means sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and three chairs of Catholic Health Ministries (CHM) alleging ordinary negligence from promulgating/adopting the Directives; she did not sue Mercy Health or individual clinicians and had missed the malpractice statute of limitations.
- USCCB moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; CHM defendants moved to transfer venue to the Western District of Michigan. The Western District dismissed USCCB for lack of personal jurisdiction and the case was transferred as to the CHM defendants.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of USCCB for lack of personal jurisdiction, affirmed the transfer decision as to CHM, and affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim for failure to plead a cognizable proximate injury under Michigan law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal-jurisdiction defense by USCCB | USCCB’s response to venue motion should be treated as a Rule 12 motion; failure to raise personal jurisdiction there waived the defense | USCCB made a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction and later filed a 12(b)(2) motion; no waiver | No waiver — special appearance preserved the defense and the response was not a Rule 12 venue motion that would trigger waiver |
| Personal jurisdiction over USCCB | USCCB published Directives knowing they apply to Michigan Catholic hospitals; that creates sufficient contacts | USCCB’s contacts are generalized and attenuated (nationwide promulgation), not acts purposefully directed at Michigan | No personal jurisdiction — publication and generalized impact are insufficient for purposeful availment and Michigan-specific contacts were too attenuated |
| Transfer of venue to Western District (CHM defendants) | Plaintiff’s chosen forum (Eastern District) should be given deference | Transfer appropriate: witnesses, evidence, location of events, and plaintiff’s residence favor Western District | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in transferring to Western District given convenience and justice factors |
| Failure to state negligence claim against CHM | Directives caused Mercy Health’s inaction, which led to physical and emotional injury; CHM owed duty to patient | Even if duty existed, Means did not plausibly allege that defendants’ adoption of Directives proximately caused a cognizable present physical injury under Michigan law | Affirmed dismissal — Michigan law requires present physical injury (or physical manifestations for emotional distress); allegations of pain/emotional trauma without present physical injury are insufficient to state negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (three-part test for constitutional due-process personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and forum contacts analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (contacts must arise from defendant’s own affiliation with forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for jurisdiction when defendant’s conduct is targeted at forum)
- Schneider v. Hardesty, 669 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2012) (letters demonstrating intent to establish contacts can support jurisdiction)
- Henry v. Dow Chem. Co., 701 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. 2005) (Michigan requires present physical injury to recover in negligence)
- O’Neal v. St. John Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 791 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2010) (proximate cause analysis requires but-for cause and foreseeability)
- Calphalon Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (special appearance does not waive personal-jurisdiction defense)
- Estate of Thomson ex rel. Estate of Rakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of personal-jurisdiction dismissal)
- First of Michigan Corp. v. Bramlet, 141 F.3d 260 (6th Cir. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for venue-transfer decisions)