McDonald v. Calhoun, No. M2007-00179-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 12/19/2007)
| Decision Date | 19 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. M2007-00179-COA-R3-CV.,M2007-00179-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | FRAZIA McDONALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRAZIA LEE MCDONALD, KATHLEEN WALLACE, AND JOHN McDONALD v. TRAVIS CALHOUN, M.D., AND JENNIE STUART MEDICAL CENTER, INC. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Geoffrey Coston, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Frazia McDonald, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Frazia Lee McDonald, Kathleen Wallace, and John McDonald.
Michael F. Jameson and Renee Levay Stewart, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Travis Calhoun, M.D.
William S. Walton and Jeffrey Zager, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
This appeal involves in personam jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. The plaintiffs' decedent was a resident of Kentucky. She was admitted to a Kentucky hospital for a blood clot in her leg. Her treating physician was a Kentucky resident. The next day, the decedent fell in her hospital bathroom and hit her head, causing bleeding in her brain. Soon thereafter, the decedent was flown to a nearby hospital in Tennessee, where she soon died from excessive bleeding in her brain. The decedent's three children brought this action in Tennessee against the Kentucky hospital and the Kentucky treating physician for wrongful death due to medical malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss based on, among other things, lack of in personam jurisdiction. The trial court granted the defendants' motions, finding that the plaintiffs had not established sufficient contacts so as to justify exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendants in Tennessee. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of in personam jurisdiction over the defendants.
This appeal in this wrongful death action turns on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Frazia Lee McDonald ("Decedent"), lived in Hopkinsville, Kentucky.2 On April 17, 2005, she was admitted to Defendant/Appellee Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc. ("Jennie Stuart Hospital" or "the Hospital"), also in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, for treatment of a blood clot behind the knee area. The Decedent's treating physician was Defendant/Appellee Travis Calhoun, M.D. ("Dr. Calhoun"), also a Kentucky resident. After admission, the Decedent was prescribed pain medication and blood thinners. During her first night after being admitted, she became confused and paranoid. Although the Decedent's fall assessment indicated that her bed alarm should be activated, this was not done.3
On the night of April 18, 2005, the Decedent fell in the hospital room bathroom and hit her head and her hip. She suffered an unusually large hematoma from her hip to her knee area and was also found to have a small subdural (brain) hematoma. The bleeding from the subdural hematoma was exacerbated by the blood thinning medicines that had been prescribed to the Decedent. In an apparent "last ditch" effort to save the Decedent's life, on April 23, 2005, the Decedent was "life flighted" sixteen miles away to Vanderbilt Medical Center ("Vanderbilt Hospital") in Nashville, Tennessee, in order for Vanderbilt physicians to evacuate the subdural hematoma. However, before this could be done, in the early morning on April 24, 2005, the Decedent died at Vanderbilt Hospital from the bleeding of the subdural hematoma. The complaint alleges that the Decedent's bleeding was so extensive that no surgery could have saved her. It further asserts that, had the Vanderbilt staff known this fact prior to the Decedent's admission, Vanderbilt Hospital would not have accepted the transfer, because this type of bleeding in the brain is invariably fatal.
On April 24, 2006, the Decedent's three children, Frazia McDonald (individually and as executrix of the estate of the Decedent), Kathleen Wallace, and John McDonald (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed the instant lawsuit in the trial court below against Dr. Calhoun and the Jennie Stuart Hospital (collectively, "Defendants") for the wrongful death of the Decedent. The complaint alleged medical malpractice, asserting that the Decedent's death was caused by the Defendants' negligent conduct. On July 28, 2006, Jennie Stuart Hospital entered a special appearance and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil procedure based on lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of venue, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Hospital claimed, among other things, that the case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue, because the Jennie Stuart Hospital is located in Kentucky, and because the Hospital had no offices, clinics, or agent for service of process in Tennessee. Furthermore, it argued, all of the negligent acts alleged in the complaint occurred in Kentucky. In addition, the Hospital contended that the case should be dismissed based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Hospital's motion to dismiss was supported by the affidavit of a Hospital employee.
The Plaintiffs filed a response to the Hospital's motion, attaching their affidavits and other proof related to the Hospital's location. They argued that personal jurisdiction over the Hospital was proper under Tennessee's long-arm statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-2-214(a). They contended that, under the statute, jurisdiction is proper in cases where an out-of-state act results in damages in Tennessee. In this case, they argued, specific jurisdiction existed because the Hospital purposely sent the Decedent to Tennessee and caused a foreseeable injury there. In addition, the Plaintiffs argued that general jurisdiction over the Hospital existed, because Jennie Stuart Hospital is located only sixteen miles outside of Tennessee, and it regularly markets its services to residents of Tennessee. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claimed, the Hospital had "continuous and systematic" contacts with Tennessee sufficient to establish general jurisdiction in this State. The Plaintiffs maintained that the issue of general jurisdiction is at least a fact question to be decided after further discovery.
On September 29, 2006, the trial court heard oral argument on the Hospital's motion. On October 9, 2006, an order was entered granting the Hospital's motion to dismiss. In the order, the trial court observed that all of the parties to the action are in Kentucky, the deceased was a resident of Kentucky, and the alleged negligent acts giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Kentucky. The trial court also noted that Kentucky law would apply to many of the issues, and that most, if not all, of the witnesses and events concerning the alleged medical negligence are located in Kentucky. Therefore, it granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The trial court further concluded that, even if personal jurisdiction and venue were proper in Tennessee, the facts would lead it to dismiss the case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Because it had concluded that the case should be dismissed on these grounds, the trial court overruled the Hospital's motion as it related to insufficiency of service of process and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
On October 13, 2006, Dr. Calhoun filed a motion to dismiss based on the same grounds as the Hospital, attaching his own affidavit in support of the motion.4 The Plaintiffs did not file a response to Dr. Calhoun's motion. On October 27, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on Dr. Calhoun's motion to dismiss, and on November 7, 2006, the trial court entered an order granting it, again based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The order noted that there was no opposition to Dr. Calhoun's motion.
On November 17, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the Defendants' motions to dismiss, attaching affidavits and other evidence. In an affidavit, Plaintiffs' counsel explained that, although he was aware the lawsuit should be filed in Kentucky, it was filed in Tennessee because of the difficulty of obtaining counsel in Kentucky. He also stated that no response was filed to Dr. Calhoun's motion to dismiss because it was incorrectly placed on the calendar in his office. The other evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs consisted of proof that the Hospital had filed several collections cases in Tennessee, six years or more before the alleged malpractice. The Plaintiffs claimed that the collection cases were evidence of the Hospital's contacts with Tennessee. On December 1, 2006, the trial court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, and on December 14, 2006, the trial court entered an order concluding again that dismissal of the complaint was appropriate. From this order, the Plaintiffs now appeal.
On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of in personam jurisdiction and improper venue.5 We review a trial court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction or for improper venue de novo, with no presumption of correctness. See Lanius v. Nashville Elec. Serv., 181 S.W.3d 661, 663 (Tenn. 2005) (venue); Noles v. Mich. Powersports, Inc., No. M2005-00420-COA-R9-CV, 2005 WL 2989614, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2005) (personal jurisdiction). In reviewing the trial court's decision to dismiss the case at this stage of the litigation, we must take the Plaintiffs' allegations of fact as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial