Mendel v. Williams
53 A.3d 810
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Mendel, a Pennsylvania resident, underwent L3-S1 laminectomy in Philadelphia on July 31, 2008 by Pennsylvania-licensed doctors Williams and Beaver; Mendel then returned to New Jersey and developed a wound infection treated at Underwood Memorial Hospital.
- Underwood's emergency room treated Mendel in New Jersey and referred her to Einstein in Philadelphia; Mendel alleges a delay in diagnosing and treating an epidural abscess, causing worsening paralysis.
- Mendel alleges that Ocasio at Underwood and the transfer to Einstein involved omissions/acts that caused Paralysis; injury ultimately discovered in Pennsylvania, where Mendel remains paralyzed.
- Mendel filed suit in Philadelphia asserting claims against Underwood, Ocasio, Einstein, and Einstein physicians; Ocasio and Underwood raised preliminary objections for lack of Pennsylvania jurisdiction.
- The trial court sustained the objections; Mendel appeals, arguing general and/or specific jurisdiction in Pennsylvania apply and venue should be proper in Philadelphia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania has general jurisdiction over Underwood | Underwood conducts continuous, systematic activities in PA via Jefferson affiliation. | Underwood lacks continuous, systematic PA presence; no domicile, property, or PA-based operations. | No general jurisdiction over Underwood. |
| Whether PA has specific jurisdiction over Underwood under 5322(a)(4) | Delay in NJ treatment caused PA injury; Underwood directed activities toward PA. | Harm originated in NJ; injury discovered in PA does not arise in PA. | 5322(a)(4) does not confer specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether PA has specific jurisdiction over Dr. Ocasio under 5322(a)(4) or due process | Ocasio's treatment in NJ, plus subsequent PA transfer, caused injury in PA; substantial PA contacts. | No substantial PA contacts; injury did not occur in PA due to Ocasio's acts. | No specific jurisdiction over Ocasio. |
| Whether venue was properly addressed given lack of jurisdiction | Venue in PA should be proper for a PA-defendant action arising in PA. | Rule 1006 does not authorize venue where jurisdiction is lacking. | Venue issue not reached; no jurisdiction, so venue not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires 'at home' contacts; stream-of-commerce not enough)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1952) (governs general jurisdiction for foreign corporations with home-office presence)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and fair play due process framework)
- McCall v. Formu-3 Intern., Inc., 650 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 1994) (general jurisdiction requires substantial PA presence; contract alone insufficient)
- McAndrew v. Burnett, 374 F. Supp. 460 (M.D. Pa. 1974) (harm arising outside PA; extraterritorial service not permitted under former statute)
- Kurtz v. Draur, 434 F. Supp. 958 (E.D. Pa. 1977) (residual harm from out-of-state treatment not enough for PA jurisdiction)
- Prince v. Urban, 49 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (follow-up telephonic care in forum insufficient for jurisdiction when initial treatment occurred elsewhere)
- Wright v. Yackley, 459 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1972) (localized services; impractical to extend jurisdiction to distant consequences of treatment)