Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05102/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert G. Freeman
Appellee
Marsha Lee Kennedy
Appellant
Stephen Michael Kennedy
Appellant
Robert G. Freeman, P.A.
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

Fl LED 

Uoited States Cou~t of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 141990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL&QBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARSHA 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. ) 

Clerk 

No. 89-5102 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1466-B) 

Matt A. Melone (Jerry M. Melone on the briefs) of Melone, 

Shepherd, Schroeder, Allred & Melone, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Galen L. Brittingham (Patricia A. Lamb on the brief) of Thomas, 

Glass, Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis & Boudreaux, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
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. 

r. 

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. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
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 (1985). In a diversity action, forum law determines 

whether a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of minimum 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3 
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-

1 17 (10th Cir. 1988). 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). 

I d t t bl . h ·f· J·ur1.·sd1.·ct1.·on, 2 nor er o es a 1.s spec1. 1.c the defendant 

1 Oklahoma's long-arm statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2004(F) 

(Supp. 1989), provides: 

2 

"A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any 

basis consistent with the Constitution of this state and 

the Constitution of the United States." 

Jurisdiction may either be general or specific. General 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 4 
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 (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, 109 S. 

Ct. 310 (1988). 

The purposeful availment requirement s~rves 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 (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 

jurisdiction .arises from a defendant's continuous and systematic 

activity in the forum state. See Rambo v. American Southern Ins. 

Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th Cir. 1988); Behagen v. Amateur 

Basketball Ass'n of the United States, 744 F.2d 731, 733 (10th 

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1010 (1985). Specific jurisdiction arises in the absence of such activity and is predicated 

on a defendant's minimum contacts with the forum which give rise 

to the cause of action. In view of the nature of Freeman's contacts in this case, we believe a specific jurisdiction analysis 

applies here. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 5 
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 outof-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,~, 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, 

~, Cubbage v. Merchent, 744 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. 

denied, 470 U.S. 1005 (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 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 6 
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 out-of-state patient by mail"). 

III. 

We hold that Freeman's actions were sufficient to establish 

jurisdiction. While Freeman did not solicit Kennedy's business in 

Oklahoma, he did purposefully direct his actions there. He 

willingly accepted the sample from Oklahoma; he signed a report 

establishing the thickness of lesion; and he evidently sent his 

bill there. Freeman rendered his diagnosis to Kennedy in 

Oklahoma, through the mail, knowing its extreme significance and 

that it would be the basis of Kennedy's further treatment there. 

Asserting jurisdiction over Freeman is compatible with the 

notions of "fair play and substantial justice" embodied in the Due 

Process Clause. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 

(1985). In this case, the defendant, Freeman, can defeat 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 7 
otherwise proper jurisdiction only by presenting "a compelling 

case that the presence of some other considerations would render 

jurisdiction unreasonable." Id. at 477. The district court 

reasoned that given the state's compelling interest in ensuring 

access to out-of-state, specialized medical care, jurisdiction 

should not lie in this case. However, when a doctor purposefully 

directs her activities at the forum state, that state has a 

greater interest in deterring medical malpractice against its 

residents. Lemke, 552 F. Supp. at 837; McGee, 442 F. Supp. at 

I 

1279. The district court's concerns are placed in their proper 

perspective when one considers that suits against doctors are 

always available in their home states. Thus, finding jurisdiction 

in this type of case will have only an incremental deterrent 

effect on doctors who provide health care to citizens of foreign 

states. At any rate, our decision is consistent with the Supreme 

Court's observation that '[t]he Due Process Clause allows flexibility in ensuring that commercial actors are not effectively 

'judgment proof' for the consequences of obligations· they 

voluntarily assume in other States." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 

486. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we REVERSE. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-5102 Document: 01019953149 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 8