Vaughan Estate of Vaughan v. Olympus Am., Inc., 208 A.3d 66

Decedent underwent procedures in North Carolina using an Olympus TJF-Q180V reusable duodenoscope; she later developed a multidrug-resistant infection and died. Plaintiff (administrator/vital) sued on behalf of the estate in Philadelphia.
Defendants: Olympus Medical System Corp. (OMSC, Japan manufacturer), Olympus Corporation of the Americas (OCA, U.S. agent, PA operations), Olympus America, Inc. (OAI, PA operations), and Custom Ultrasonics, Inc. (PA AER manufacturer). Plaintiff alleges the device redesign rendered the existing reprocessing protocol ineffective and that OMSC failed to update the protocol.
OCA conceded it is OMSC’s U.S. agent for FDA statutory reporting, including section 510(k) premarket notifications; OMSC designs the reprocessing instructions; OCA handles U.S. dissemination.
Procedurally: trial court sustained OMSC’s preliminary objection for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted forum non conveniens dismissal as to OCA/OAI/Custom, ordering Pennsylvania suit dismissed for refile in North Carolina. Plaintiff appealed.
Superior Court reversed: (1) found Pennsylvania has specific jurisdiction over OMSC based on OCA’s agency and joint FDA-related activities linked to the reprocessing protocol claims; and (2) held the trial court abused its discretion in granting forum non conveniens dismissal because plaintiff’s choice of Pennsylvania forum was supported by significant in-forum corporate conduct and witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pennsylvania has personal jurisdiction over OMSC	OMSC purposefully availed itself via OCA’s extensive PA-based regulatory, marketing, and safety activities and OCA is OMSC’s FDA agent; those in-forum acts are tied to the claims about the reprocessing protocol	OMSC argued insufficient contacts with PA and challenged attribution of OCA’s contacts to OMSC	Specific jurisdiction exists: OMSC’s FDA-agent relationship with OCA and their joint acts related to the reprocessing instructions suffice for minimum contacts and fairness.
Whether forum non conveniens dismissal was proper for OCA/OAI/Custom	Vaughan: plaintiff’s forum choice should stand absent weighty reasons; significant corporate activities and many witnesses are in PA so public/private factors favor PA	Defendants: North Carolina is the more appropriate forum because evidence, treatment, and some witnesses are located there	Trial court abused discretion: private and public interest factors did not provide weighty reasons to disturb plaintiff’s PA forum choice; dismissal reversed.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction; specific jurisdiction is claim-linked)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires adequate connection between forum and claim; mere wide-ranging contacts insufficient)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction and critiques broad agency imputation for general-jurisdiction purposes)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and minimum contacts framework)
Bochetto v. Dimeling, Schreiber, & Park, 151 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2016) (forum non conveniens factors and deference to plaintiff’s forum choice absent weighty reasons)
Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. 2006) (forum non conveniens analysis and relevance of in-forum corporate decisions)
Schiavone v. Aveta, 41 A.3d 861 (Pa. Super. 2012) (due process test for jurisdiction: purposeful contacts and fair play)
Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1992) (Pennsylvania long-arm statute construed to the constitutional limit)