Opinion ID: 1970507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's Place of Employment

Text: The fact that a plaintiff is employed in the District of Columbia, insofar as it is relevant to a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, carries very little weight when it is not related to the alleged injury. This point was made clear in Herskovitz v. Garmong, supra , where we said that appellant's employment in the District, although `a factor' in the equation, is not one of `overriding significance.' 609 A.2d at 1131 (citation omitted). [4] What we said in Herskovitz is pertinent here. All of the alleged malpractice occurred in Maryland, where Ms. Ussery elected to receive  and actually did receive  her medical care from Kaiser. The injuries that Ms. Ussery alleges were in no way related to her employment in the District, except for the fact that she enrolled in Kaiser's health plan through her employer. When confronted with a similar set of facts, the court in Ott v. Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc., 689 F.Supp. 9 (D.D.C.1988), concluded that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed. Ott was a medical malpractice action brought in the District of Columbia by Maryland residents for an alleged injury that occurred in Maryland. In Ott, as in this case, the sole connections this action has with the District of Columbia are that Kaiser is incorporated in the District of Columbia and Mr. Ott, who works in the District of Columbia, receives Kaiser medical insurance for himself and his family as an employment benefit. Id. at 10. The court held that these ties established only the most tenuous connections with the District of Columbia, connections that were not sufficient to cause [the District of Columbia] to be the appropriate forum in which to maintain this action. Id. at 12 (citing Gulf Oil, supra, 330 U.S. at 506-507, 67 S.Ct. at 842). Although the District had an interest in protecting a member of its work force, the court concluded that Maryland's interest in protecting its residents was greater and more compelling. Id. at 13 (citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 314, 101 S.Ct. 633, 641, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981)). We agree with both the reasoning and the result in Ott, and we adopt its holding here. In both this case and Ott, the primary relationship between the parties to the instant litigation centered on Maryland, where [the plaintiffs] routinely received health care; [the plaintiffs'] status as third-party beneficiaries of a contract hardly dominated their more direct relationship as Kaiser patients. 689 F.Supp. at 14. Because Ms. Ussery's alleged injuries were not connected with her employment, the fact that she was a member of the District of Columbia's work force was not sufficient to defeat Kaiser's motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens.