Abstract
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005 ).
2.Id.
3.Id. , at 69.
4.Id. , at 54.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. , at 58.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. The Court does note, in its opinion, that it remained unclear whether Harlow returned to Children's Hospital after her procedure, but pointed out that Harlow did not allege she had returned. Id. , at note 4.
12.Id. , at 59.
13.Id.
14.Id. , at 54.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. , at 54.
20.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60D (2005 ).
21.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 2902 (2005 )
22.Harlow , 432 F.3d, at 54.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id. , at 55.
26.Id. , at 58–59. The Court also briefly addressed the law of the case doctrine. Harlow raised this issue in the District Court as well, arguing that the Maine Superior Court's favorable decision on the personal jurisdiction issue barred Children's Hospital from relitigating the issue in federal court. The Court of Appeals found the doctrine inapplicable primarily because the state court decision on the interlocutory order was not yet the law of the case. The Court then proceeded to address the merits of Harlow's personal jurisdiction argument. Id. , at 55–56.
27.Id. , at 57
28.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 704–A(1) (2005 ).
29.
Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57.
30.Id.
31.Id. , at 58–60.
32.Id. , at 60–61.
33.Id. , at 64.
34.Id. , at 62. “Harlow's argument in support of specific jurisdiction is that ‘[s]imply stated, but for Children's Hospital's contacts with the state of Maine, Danielle Harlow never would have undergone the surgical procedure that she did, and she never would have suffered her injuries.’”
35.Id.
36.Id.
37.Id. , at 62–63.
38.Id. , at 63.
39.Id. , citing Wright v. Yackley , 459 F.2d 287, 289 (9th Cir. 1972 ). “In the case of personal services focus must be on the place where the services are rendered, since this is the place of the receiver's (here the patient's) need.” But see Cubbage v. Merchant , 744 F.2d 665, 669–671 (9th Cir. 1984 ) (refusing to apply the broad language of Wright in the hospital setting where the hospital advertised and circulated telephone directories in the foreign forum).
40.Harlow , 432 F.3d, at 65.
41.Id.
42.Id. , at 66.
43.Id. , at 65.
44.Id. , at 66.
45.Id.
46.Id.
47.Id.
48.Id. , at 67. “The factors to be considered, known as the ‘Gestalt factors,’ include: (1) the defendant's burden of appearing, (2) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, (4) the judicial system's interest in obtaining the most effective resolution of the controversy, and (5) the common interests of all sovereigns in promoting substantive social policies” (citations omitted).
49.Id. , at 67, 68.
50.Id. , at 68.
51.Id. , at 69.
52.Id. , noting that Harlow's argument concerning “relative convenience and burden is more appropriately dealt with under the law of forum non conveniens or change of venue…. Even under the doctrines of forum non conveniens and change of venue, it is not clear that sheer disparity in wealth is legally relevant, without proof of hardship.”
53.Id. , at 68.