Boston Partner Nancy Kelly and Hartford Senior Counsel Adam Masin prevailed on a hotly-contested motion to dismiss on behalf of a Colorado-based medical device manufacturer. The team also acknowledges valuable assistance from Senior Counsel Chris Drury and Associate Haylee Booth for their efforts in connection with jurisdictional discovery.
This case set precedent that an in-forum, third-party physician’s prescription of a medical device, without more, is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-forum medical device manufacturer in a product liability lawsuit.
The plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island alleging product liability and negligence claims against the manufacturer of an FDA-cleared cold compression device, a Connecticut-based distributor of the device, and the Rhode Island doctor who prescribed the device for use following surgery. Gordon & Rees attorneys moved to dismiss the claims against their medical device manufacturer client for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the court could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer given the lack of direct contacts with Rhode Island and the lack of an adequate connection between the forum and the specific claims against the manufacturer. The firm's attorneys renewed their motion to dismiss after the court permitted jurisdictional discovery.
The relevant facts are:
- The manufacturer, a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Colorado, has no operations, locations or employees in Rhode Island.
- The manufacturer does business with the Connecticut distributor who distributes its products in New England (including Rhode Island) and other states.
- The manufacturer did not direct or take part in the distributor’s marketing activities.
- The plaintiff traveled from Massachusetts to Rhode Island to consult with a doctor who prescribed the device for use following surgery.
- The plaintiff’s surgery took place in Massachusetts; he filled the device prescription in Massachusetts, and he obtained and used the device allegedly causing his injuries in Massachusetts, where he also obtained instructions from the distributor’s representative.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bristol Myers, the court emphasized that it may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction (the plaintiff conceded the court could not exercise general jurisdiction) “where the connection between the cause of action and the defendant’s forum-state contacts seems attenuated and indirect.” The “defendant’s in-state conduct must form an important, or at least material, element of proof in the plaintiff’s case.” Where the plaintiff was a Massachusetts resident who used the product and sustained his injury in Massachusetts, not Rhode Island, and the product was designed and manufactured in Colorado, not Rhode Island, the court fund that there was not a “real” link between the manufacturer’s indirect contacts with the forum and the litigation to support specific jurisdiction.
This important decision may have implications in cases where a plaintiff may want to engage in forum shopping, including in cases where the only occurrence in a plaintiff’s chosen forum involved a third-party but not the manufacturer.