Opinion ID: 3031279
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: In 1997, the year following the accident,

Text: The Nemours Foundation entered into a pediatric partnership with AtlanticCare in Southern New Jersey. Dr. Stanton was a pediatric specialist employed at the partnership from September 1998 through May 2001. He was listed in a professional staff directory as an orthopedic specialist available for appointments in New Jersey. 13 Examining these respective contacts, we find the District Court did not err in concluding Delaware law applied. It correctly placed special emphasis in this case on the fact that all of the contact between Warriner and Dr. Stanton occurred in Delaware. In personal injury cases, the New Jersey Supreme Court has counseled that “the place where the injury occurred is a contact that, as to most issues, plays an important role in the selection of the state of the applicable law.” Fu, 733 A.2d at 1142 (quoting Restatement, § 145 cmt. e). Furthermore, it has explained that “[w]hen both conduct and injury occur in a single jurisdiction, with only ‘rare exceptions, the local law of the state where conduct and injury occurred will be applied’ to determine an actor’s liability.” Id. (quoting Restatement, § 145 cmt. d). This general rule is followed because “a state has an obvious interest in regulating the conduct of persons within its territory and in providing redress for injuries that occurred there.” Id. In this case, both the allegedly tortious conduct and injury occurred in Delaware. In fact, Warriner’s entire treatment history – beginning a mere twelve days after his birth and extending over nearly a decade – was based in Delaware and undertaken by a Delaware doctor. Each of these contacts is relevant to Delaware’s stated public policy of providing a finite period of time for medical malpractice claims to require plaintiffs to file timely claims, particularly when those injuries occur within the State of Delaware. Most importantly, considering the interests of interstate comity, it is apparent that the application of New Jersey’s statute of limitations in this case would directly contravene Delaware’s clearly articulated interest in shielding its health care providers from liability for a claim that, under its own considered judgment, expressed through its statute of limitations, is unquestionably stale. See Erny, 792 A.2d at 1217 14 (“When considering the interests of interstate comity, a court must determine whether application of a competing state’s law would frustrate the policies of other interested states.”) (quoting Fu, 733 A.2d at 1141). Furthermore, the fact that all the contacts occurring in this case were in Delaware takes on even greater significance considering that they were not fortuitous but rather intentionally initiated by the Warriners themselves. Id. (“The place of injury becomes less important where it is simply fortuitous.”). Warriner elected to travel to Delaware from 1989 until 1998 for specialized medical treatment and, even after his final surgery with Dr. Stanton in 1996 and the establishment of a Nemours-related facility in New Jersey in 1997, continued to receive medical treatment in Delaware. In the context of a doctor-patient lawsuit, we have observed that “it is only fair that the law of the state to which the patient has voluntarily traveled, and in which the doctor has chosen to [practice], be applied to adjudicate the respective rights, duties, and obligations between the parties.” Blakesley v. Wolford, 789 F.2d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 1986). In addition, although Warriner was a resident of New Jersey at the time of the alleged malpractice, “citizens do not . . . carry their home state’s laws with them wherever they go.” Amoroso v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hosp., 901 F. Supp. 900, 906 (D.N.J. 1995). Indeed, it is hornbook law that “by entering the state . . . the visitor has exposed himself to the risks of the territory and should not expect to subject persons living there to a financial hazard that their law had not created.” Id. (quoting D. F. Cavers, The Choice of Law Process 146-47 (1965)). We agree with the Warriners that the fact that Dr. Stanton was licensed in New Jersey prior to the accident is relevant to 15 New Jersey’s public policy goals of deterring tortious conduct and providing compensation for victims of such conduct. However, as stipulated by the parties, Dr. Stanton’s New Jersey license was obtained at the instruction of his employer in order to facilitate payments rather than for the purpose of practicing medicine in New Jersey. And while Dr. Stanton did eventually begin to see patients in New Jersey, it was not until two years after the date of the alleged malpractice involving Warriner. Placed in proper perspective, Dr. Stanton’s limited contact with New Jersey at the time of Warriner’s injury pales in comparison to the overwhelming number of contacts with Delaware in this case, and the exceedingly strong and clearly articulated public policy interest of Delaware in having its law apply to those contacts. In addition, Delaware’s statute of limitations, like all tort rules, also implicitly reflects a policy interest in deterring tortious conduct and providing compensation to injured victims, and Delaware’s own judgment is on equal footing with New Jersey’s as to how long its health care providers should be exposed to liability to adequately serve the goals of compensation and deterrence. Fu, 733 A.2d at 1141 (“Rules . . . that deny liability are entitled to equal consideration in choice-of-law determinations as are rules imposing liability.”). On balance then, it was not erroneous for the District Court to accord relatively little significance to the fact that Dr. Stanton has been licensed in New Jersey.4 4 We do not disagree with the dissent that the fact that Dr. Stanton was licensed in New Jersey is a contact of some significance. However, we do believe the significance of this 16 It is certainly true that New Jersey has a policy interest in safeguarding the welfare of minors and ensuring they are compensated for their injuries. And while we agree with Warriner that this interest is very substantial, we do not agree that this interest should in effect trump all other factors in the governmental interest analysis. Warriner suggests that the substantial weight New Jersey affords this particular interest is “confirmed by the overriding weight our courts ascribe to a child’s New Jersey domicile and residency in the choice of law analysis.” Br. of Appellant, at 17 (quoting Black v. Walker, 684 A.2d 1011, 1017 (N.J. Super 1996)). The authority cited by Warriner here, however, is taken entirely out of context and is unpersuasive.5 In Black v. Walker, supra, a New Jersey appellate court concluded that “family-law precedent . . . fact is diminished in light of the overwhelming number of Delaware contacts in this case. 5 We note appellants fail to cite case law from the New Jersey Supreme Court for many of their propositions, including the one discussed here. In construing state law, “we must determine how the highest court of the State would decide an issue.” Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 464-465 (1967). In diversity cases, the decisions of lower state courts “while attributed some weight, are not controlling where the highest court of the state has not spoken on the point . . . . If there be no decision by that court then [we] must apply what [we] find to be the state law after giving ‘proper regard’ to relevant rulings of other courts of the State. In this respect, we may be said to be, in effect, sitting as a state court.” Id. at 465 (citations omitted). 17 confirms the overriding weight our courts ascribe to a child’s New Jersey domicile and residency in the choice-of-law analysis.” Id. (emphasis added). As the full quote, as opposed to the excised version cited by Warriner, makes clear, the appellate court in Black was considering choice of law in the context of family law, more specifically in the context of childsupport payments, an area in which it is apparent, indeed patently obvious, that the interests of a minor are of paramount concern. This case is therefore of little value to the analysis in the present case. In the specific context of a torts choice of law analysis, we find no authority, and appellants have cited none, suggesting in effect that a state’s interest in compensating its minors, as opposed to other victims of tortious conduct, should “unequivocally outweigh” all other policy considerations.6 6 Similarly, we do not find persuasive the cases cited by the dissent in support of the proposition that New Jersey’s compensation interest is a trump card in the analysis. Unlike the case before us, these cases reveal no true conflict between New Jersey’s compensation interest and the policies of the other states involved. See Pine v. Eli Lilly & Co., 492 A.2d 1079, 1083 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985) (applying NJ law but stating “[w]e are unable to conclude that New York has any compelling interest in having its statute of limitations apply here to defeat recovery by plaintiff”); Dent v. Cunningham, 786 F.2d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 1986) (“Both New Jersey’s and California’s policies in a tort context consist primarily of compensation and deterrence. . . . [W]e conclude that application of New Jersey law would in no way interfere with California’s interests in deterrence and compensation.”). In cases such as these, where there are no “competing state interests” to be balanced, we 18 Consequently, while we give this factor due consideration and accord it substantial significance, we still must view it in light of all the policy concerns implicated by the facts before us. And as substantial as this particular interest may be, when put on the scales opposite Delaware’s extraordinarily strong interests in this case, it fails to outweigh them. Finally, appellants rely heavily on our decision in Schum v. Bailey, supra, arguing it is virtually indistinguishable from the case before us and should therefore light our way. While Schum does in fact confirm “New Jersey’s strong interest in protecting the compensation rights of its domiciliaries” as well as New Jersey’s interest in deterring tortious conduct on the part of medical practitioners, Schum, 578 F.2d at 496-97, we agree with the District Court that it is distinguishable from the case before us. In Schum, a New Jersey resident filed a medical malpractice claim against her New York physician for tortious conduct occurring in New York. All of the defendant’s services, including the surgery at issue, were performed in New York, the state in which the defendant maintained his major practice. Applying the governmental interest test, we determined that New York’s interests in compensating its own domiciliaries and deterring future misconduct were the same as New Jersey’s, and that the interests of both states would be adequately served by application of New Jersey law. Id. at 496 (“Having identified the relevant policies, and, having examined them in light of this factual context, it becomes evident that both policies would be readily concede that New Jersey’s compensation interest may emerge as “paramount.” 19 served by the application in this case of New Jersey’s own law.”). Thus, the key to understanding Schum and how it is distinguishable from the case before us is that in Schum, there was no true conflict between the policies of the states of New York and New Jersey. Id. at 497 (“[S]ince [the] record reveals no conflict between New York and New Jersey insofar as the application of their substantive laws is concerned, and since the record also reveals that New Jersey has a substantial interest in the application of its own law, we conclude that New Jersey, as an interested forum, would apply its own law of liability.”) (emphasis added).7 Schum merely reaffirms that “[i]f a strong state policy or interest will be neither fostered by applying that state’s law, nor frustrated by the failure to apply it, it is highly unlikely that that state has any interest whatsoever in blanketing that particular issue with its law.” White v. Smith, 398 F. Supp. 130, 134 (D.N.J.1975). See also General Ceramics v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Cos., 66 F.3d 647, 656 (3d Cir. 1995) (“A multistate conflict of laws exists only when contacts are distributed such that more than one state wants to regulate the case.”) (citations omitted). By contrast, in this case, as already discussed at 7 Contesting our conclusion that Schum is distinguishable from our own case for this reason, the dissent cites dicta from the concurrence in Schum, finding there was indeed a conflict between New York and New Jersey in having their laws applied. See Schum, 578 F.2d at 501-02 (Gibbons, J., concurring). We cite the majority opinion and find it more persuasive on this particular point. 20 length, there is a clear and substantial conflict between the concerns of New Jersey’s and Delaware’s law with respect to the statute-of-limitations issue. The outcome in this case, therefore, is not prescribed by Schum, as Warriner has so persistently argued before the District Court and our own Court.