JIMMERSON v. KAISER FOUNDATION

• Decision Date: 17 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-CV-1307,93-CV-1307
• Citation: 663 A.2d 540
• Parties: Natlynn JIMMERSON, Appellant, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE MID-ATLANTIC STATES, INC., et al., Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

663 A.2d 540

Natlynn JIMMERSON, Appellant, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THEMID-ATLANTIC STATES, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 93-CV-1307.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued February 17, 1995.

Decided August 17, 1995.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT, JOHN H. SUDA, J.

Lloyd D. Iglehart, for appellant.

Alexander P. Starr, for appellees.

Before FERREN and KING, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior Judge.

BELSON, Senior Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing appellant's negligence and survival action on forum non conveniens grounds. Upon consideration of the litigation's contacts with the District of Columbia and Maryland and the factors that bear upon whether the District of Columbia is an inconvenient forum for proceedings in this case, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the dismissal. We therefore reverse the trial court's order and remand the case for reinstatement.

I.

Appellant Natlynn Jimmerson, a District of Columbia resident, filed a medical malpractice and survival action against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. ("Kaiser"), a District of Columbia corporation, Capital Area Permanente Medical Group, P.C. ("Permanente"), a District of Columbia professional corporation, Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc. ("Holy Cross Hospital"), a foreign corporation,¹ and, through an amended complaint, physicians J. Rochford-Molineaux and Robert Green. The amended complaint alleges that Jimmerson's infant son expired during delivery at Holy Cross Hospital due to the defendants' negligence. Jimmerson received prenatal care in the District of Columbia from Kaiser, Permanente, and at least one of the physicians. Jimmerson, however, does not allegethat any negligence occurred until delivery at Holy Cross Hospital in Maryland.

Defendant Holy Cross Hospital moved for dismissal on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction over it, and was dismissed from the case. The remaining defendants, appellees here, filed an answer asserting, among other things, what they styled a "defense" of forum non conveniens on the basis that the trial court "lack[ed] jurisdiction" in light of the inconvenience of the forum. They then filed an amended answer and a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. The judge who initially presided over the case died before ruling on the motion. Subsequently, Judge John H. Suda granted appellees' motion to dismiss with the requirement that they waive the statute of limitations in Maryland. Consequently, appellant Jimmerson filed a claim with the Health Claims Arbitration Office of Maryland. Jimmerson also appealed the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal to this court, but did not appeal the dismissal of Holy Cross Hospital for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Maryland arbitration panel chairman granted the motion of Holy Cross Hospital for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, observing that the claimant did not qualify for an equitable exception to Maryland's general rule of limitations because she had shown a marked lack of diligence in "waiting twenty months after the statute of limitations ran before filing" her Maryland action.²

II.

In appeals involving forum non conveniens motions we review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion while at the same time conducting our own analysis of the public and private interests involved. Ussery v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., 647 A.2d 778, 780 (D.C. 1994).

We have repeatedly held that trial court rulings on forum non conveniens motions are entitled to receive considerable deference from this court. We will not reverse such a ruling unless presented with clear evidence that the trial court abused its broad discretion.

This deference, however, does not amount to carte blanche. Unlike our review of most acts of judicial discretion, our review of rulings on forum non conveniens motions includes an independent evaluation of the "private" and "public" factors enumerated in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509, 67 S.Ct. 839, 842-843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947).

Jenkins v. Smith, 535 A.2d 1367, 1369 (D.C. 1987) (en banc) (citations omitted).

We have described our review for abuse of discretion as follows:

[a]lthough only a "clear showing" of abuse of discretion will suffice to reverse the trial court's decision, "such rulings receive closer scrutiny than most exercises of trial court discretion," and "convincing circumstances" may demonstrate trial court error as a matter of law.

Dunkwu v. Neville, 575 A.2d 293, 294 (D.C. 1990) (quoting Jenkins, supra, 535 A.2d at 1370 (quoting in part Washington v. May Dep't Stores, 388 A.2d 484, 486 (D.C. 1978))). Significantly, we have also noted that:

[w]hile in general, "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed," Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 511 A.2d 8, 10 (D.C. 1986), quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), that rule pertains especially when the plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia.

Dunkwu, supra, 575 A.2d at 294-95 (citations omitted). In so stating, we reenforced our earlier statement in Jenkins, supra:

. . When the plaintiff is a resident of this jurisdiction, the defendant who seeks dismissal faces a heavy task: "only under convincing circumstances . . . should a trial court in this jurisdiction dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens a suit brought by a resident of the District ofColumbia." Washington v. May Department Stores, supra, 388 A.2d at 487; accord Asch v. Taveres, [467 A.2d 976, 979 D.C. 1983.]

Jenkins, supra, 535 A.2d at 1370.

We also identified in Jenkins the ultimate question that must be resolved by a forum non conveniens analysis:

[w]hether the District of Columbia is the best forum for this litigation is not the issue; rather, [the court] must determine whether the District has so little to do with this case that its courts should decline to hear it.

Jenkins, supra, 535 A.2d at 1371.

III.

The outcome of our forum non conveniens analysis will be determined largely by a weighing of the relevant contacts the parties and the litigation have with the District and Maryland. Appellant Jimmerson resides in the District of Columbia, and is employed here. She was insured by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and enrolled in the Permanente program. She received her prenatal and post-delivery care at a Permanente facility in the District. Appellees Kaiser and Permanente are District of Columbia corporations that conduct business throughout the metropolitan area. According to appellees' brief, both have moved their administrative offices to Maryland since the occurrence giving rise to this action. Appellee physicians Rochford-Molineaux and Green were licensed to practice in both the District and Maryland at the time of the occurrence. Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, Maryland, was designated by Permanente as the facility at which Jimmerson's child would be delivered. All the alleged negligence occurred in Maryland, and Maryland law will most likely govern the dispute. Thus, there are significant contacts with both jurisdictions.

Two separate types of interests must be considered in evaluating a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, the private interests of the litigants and the public interest.

Factors relevant to the private interest concern the ease, expedition, and expense of the trial, and include the relative ease of access to proof; availability and cost of compulsory process; the enforceability of a judgment once obtained; evidence of an attempt by the plaintiff to vex or harass the defendant by his choice of the forum; and other obstacles to a fair trial. . . . Factors related to the public interest include administrative difficulties caused by local court dockets congested with foreign litigation; the imposition of jury duty on a community having no relationship to the litigation; and the inappropriateness of requiring local courts to interpret the laws of another jurisdiction.

Carr v. Bio-Medical Applications of Washington, Inc., 366 A.2d 1089, 1092 (D.C. 1976) (citations omitted). Our task is to evaluate the specific private and public factors that figure in this case in order to answer the ultimate question identified in Jenkins — "whether the District has so little to do with this case that we should decline to hear it." Jenkins, supra, 535 A.2d at 1371.

Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia. As we stated above, this fact presented a formidable hurdle to appellees as they sought dismissal in the trial court. In Carr, supra, 366 A.2d at 1093, however, we rejected a per se rule that actions brought by District residents may not be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, and affirmed dismissal on those grounds. In Carr, the alleged tortious conduct occurred in Maryland, all the defendant physicians resided and were licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, the defendant professional corporation was incorporated in Maryland, Maryland case law clearly would govern the suit, and the other defendant was a Delaware corporation qualified to do business exclusively in Maryland. Id. at 1092-93. In light of the fact that the suit had contacts with Maryland that were far more substantial than its contacts with the District, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit despite the fact that the plaintiff was a District resident. Id. at 1093. See also Guevara v. Reed, 598 A.2d 1157 (D.C. 1991) (dismissing action by District plaintiffs where party needed for fair adjudication available in alternate jurisdiction butnot in District); cf. Herskovitz v. Garmong, 609 A.2d 1128 (D.C. 1992) (trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing action with slight connection with the District...