Kennedy v. Freeman

Decision Date14 November 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-5102,89-5102
Citation919 F.2d 126
PartiesMarsha Lee KENNEDY and Stephen Michael Kennedy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert G. FREEMAN, M.D. and Robert G. Freeman, P.A., a Texas corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Matt A. Melone (Jerry M. Melone, on the briefs), of Melone, Shepherd, Schroeder, Allred & Melone, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Galen L. Brittingham (Patricia A. Lamb, on the brief), of Thomas, Glass, Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis & Boudreaux, Tulsa, Okl., for defendants-appellees.

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Marsha Lee Kennedy and Stephen Michael Kennedy ("Kennedy") appeal from the district court order dismissing their complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants, Robert G. Freeman, M.D. and Robert G. Freeman, P.A. ("Freeman"). We reverse.

I.

Marsha Kennedy, a resident of Oklahoma, sought medical advice in 1982 from her physician, Dr. Dosser, because of a "mole" on her thigh. Dosser removed the lesion and sent it from his office in Oklahoma to Freeman in Dallas, Texas, for a special measurement. Freeman willingly accepted the sample. He measured the sample and sent a report to Dosser indicating the thickness of the lesion, expecting that it would be used in the treatment of Kennedy. Freeman also evidently sent his bill to Oklahoma.

Unfortunately, Freeman's report was inaccurate. He incorrectly advised Dosser that the specimen was 0.2 mm thick when in fact it measured 1.2 mm. The thickness of a lesion determines the treatment to be administered to a patient. As a result of the error, Kennedy was not given any treatment or follow-up care. Four years later, she learned that malignant melonoma had spread over her entire body.

Kennedy filed a complaint in the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging Freeman negligently undermeasured and reported the size of the lesion. Freeman filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The district court granted the motion from which Kennedy appeals. See Kennedy v. Freeman, 710 F.Supp. 1317 (N.D.Okla.1989).

II.

This court reviews district court jurisdictional rulings de novo. Ten Mile Indus. Park v. Western Plains Serv. Corp., 810 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir.1987). The following standard controls our review:

"The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Prior to trial, however, when a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and other written materials, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing. The allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits. If the parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party."

Behagen v. Amateur Basketball Ass'n of the United States, 744 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir.1984) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1010, 105 S.Ct. 1879, 85 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). In a diversity action, forum law determines whether a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of minimum contacts to establish jurisdiction. Yarbrough v. Elmer Bunker & Assocs., 669 F.2d 614, 616 (10th Cir.1982). A plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of the forum's long-arm statute as well as the federal constitution to establish personal jurisdiction. Equifax Servs., Inc. v. Hitz, 905 F.2d 1355, 1357 (10th Cir.1990). Oklahoma's long-arm statute jurisdiction is coextensive with the constitutional limitations imposed by the Due Process Clause. Rambo v. American Southern Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1416-17 (10th Cir.1988). 1 Therefore, if jurisdiction is consistent with the Due Process Clause, Oklahoma's long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. We maintain the following general constitutional test for the exercise of personal jurisdiction:

" 'A federal court sitting in diversity "may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ' "minimum contacts" ' between the defendant and the forum state." "The defendant's contacts with the forum state must be such that maintenance of the suit 'does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ' " ' "

Rambo, 839 F.2d at 1417 (citations omitted).

In order to establish specific jurisdiction, 2 the defendant must do some act that represents an effort by the defendant to "purposefully avail[ ] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); Rambo, 839 F.2d at 1417. A defendant does so when she purposefully directs her foreign acts so that they have an effect in the forum state. Lanier v. American Bd. of Endodontics, 843 F.2d 901, 910 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926, 109 S.Ct. 310, 102 L.Ed.2d 329 (1988).

The purposeful availment requirement serves two functions. First, it identifies acts that a defendant would reasonably expect to subject her to jurisdiction in the particular forum. Second, it ensures that only the defendant's acts directed at the forum establish jurisdiction. Rambo, 839 F.2d at 1419 (citing Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183-84, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). Random, fortuitous, or unilateral acts of other parties cannot be the basis for jurisdiction. Id.

In the context of doctor-patient litigation, special rules have evolved to ensure that personal jurisdiction is asserted over a doctor only when she has purposefully availed herself of the privileges of conducting activities within her patient's state. While a doctor's practice may be local, she may often treat out-of-state patients who seek her help. Thus, courts have had to fashion jurisdictional rules when doctors who have essentially local practices become involved in another state not as a result of their intention to do so but, rather, as a result of the action of their out-of-states patients. See, e.g., Wright v. Yackley, 459 F.2d 287, 288-89 (9th Cir.1972) (no jurisdiction in Idaho over South Dakota doctor who treated his patient in South Dakota and merely phoned a prescription refill into Idaho); McAndrew v. Burnett, 374 F.Supp. 460 (M.D.Penn.1974) (no jurisdiction in Pennsylvania over New York surgeon where alleged negligent surgery occurred in New York and decedent subsequently moved to Pennsylvania and died there). Courts have found jurisdiction over nonresident doctors where they purposefully directed their actions at plaintiffs' states. For example, where doctors or hospitals have intentionally solicited business from a state, courts have held jurisdiction over them to be proper in that state. See, e.g., Cubbage v. Merchent, 744 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005, 105 S.Ct. 1359, 84 L.Ed.2d 380 (1985); Pijanowski v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 635 F.Supp. 1435 (E.D.Mich.1986); Lemke v. St. Margaret Hosp., 552 F.Supp. 833 (N.D.Ill.1982).

The district court here erred in asserting that jurisdiction over a nonresident doctor cannot be established "[u]nless there is some form of solicitation." Kennedy, 710 F.Supp. at 1320. Whether a "party solicited the business interface is irrelevant, so long as defendant then directed its activities to the forum resident." Lanier, 843 F.2d at 910. In McGee v. Riekhof, 442 F.Supp. 1276 (D.Mont.1978), the court asserted jurisdiction over a nonresident doctor on the basis of his phone call from Utah to Montana in which he rendered a new diagnosis to his patient. See also Wright, 459 F.2d at 289 n. 4 (court stated in dicta that it would be inclined to find jurisdiction where a "doctor could be said to have treated an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • Presbyterian University Hosp. v. Wilson, 632
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1993
    ...court essentially refuted the same argument that we are faced with. In addition to Cubbage, we find the reasoning in Kennedy v. Freeman, 919 F.2d 126 (10th Cir.1990) persuasive. 8 In that case, the plaintiff-patient was an Oklahoma resident who sought medical advice from Dr. Freeman, a Texa......
  • Casey v. Hill
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Mayo 2022
    ...is irrelevant, so long as defendant then directed its activities to the forum residents.’ " ( Kennedy v. Freeman (10th Cir. 1990) 919 F.2d 126, 129 ; Lanier v. American Bd. of Endodontics (6th Cir. 1988) 843 F.2d 901, 910 ; accord Bryant, supra , 310 S.W.3d at p. 235 ["the fact that someone......
  • Kostal v. PINKUS DERMATOPATHOLOGY LAB., 1-04-1447.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 15 Abril 2005
    ...that physician has purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the patient's state. Kennedy v. Freeman, 919 F.2d 126, 129 (10th Cir.1990). Courts have developed these special rules "when doctors who have essentially local practices become involved in another s......
  • Inter-Americas Ins. Corp., Inc. v. Xycor Systems, Inc., 88-1021-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • 25 Febrero 1991
    ...in the particular forum, and it ensures that only the defendant's acts directed at the forum establish jurisdiction." Kennedy v. Freeman, 919 F.2d 126, 128 (10th Cir.1990) (emphasis in original). This requirement effectively prevents a defendant from being haled into a jurisdiction "solely ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Conning the IADC newsletters.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 67 No. 3, July 2000
    • 1 Julio 2000
    ...opinion itself emphasized the importance of the individual facts: A case closer on point in plaintiffs' favor is Kennedy v. Freeman, 919 F.2d 126 (10th Cir. 1990), in which the Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma had personal jurisdiction over a Texas physician because the defendant had direct......
  • Internet pharmacies: cyberspace versus the regulatory state.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 15 No. 2, June 2000
    • 22 Junio 2000
    ...available at . (15) Id. (16) Id. (17) Id. (18) Id. (19) See, e.g., Wright v. Yackley, 459 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1972); Kennedy v. Freeman, 919 F.2d 126 (10th Cir. 1990); McGee v. Riekhof, 442 F. Supp. 1276 (D. Mont. (20) See, e.g., John Hinkel, Buying Drugs Online: It's Convenient and Private,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT