There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction. General personal jurisdiction relates to contacts unrelated to the litigation including domicile or continuous and systemic contacts with the forum state. Specific personal jurisdiction focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, and the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state such that the litigation results from alleged harms that arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
A Minnesota district court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if either general personal jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction is satisfied. Minnesota courts consider five factors when determining whether exercising specific personal jurisdiction is consonant with federal due process: (1) the quantity of contacts with the forum state; (2) the nature and quality of those contacts; (3) the connection of the cause of action with these contacts; (4) the interest of the state providing a forum; and (5) the convenience of the parties.
In a Minnesota medical malpractice case where the decedent visited the emergency room of a Minnesota hospital complaining of chest pain beneath his sternum while at rest and that the constant pain worsened with activity, which started four days prior, the emergency room physician remotely consulted with a cardiologist and an interventional cardiologist located in North Dakota. All three physicians concluded that the decedent could be discharged with instructions to follow up on an outpatient basis.
The following day the decedent died at home. An autopsy determined that the cause of death “acute lymphocytic myocarditis involving conduction system.” A Minnesota medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against the hospital, the emergency room physician, and the cardiologist located in North Dakota. The nonresident cardiologist moved to dismiss the lawsuit against him, arguing that the Minnesota court had no jursidiction over him. The Minnesota court refused to dismiss after it determined that it had specific personal jurisdiction over him. The cardiologist appealed.
The MInnesota appellate court stated in its December 9, 2024 Opinion: “While we are mindful that Dr. Manjunath’s minimum contact with Minnesota is limited, we nevertheless conclude that it is sufficient for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction based on the contact’s nature and quality, as well as its connection with the cause of action … Dr. Manjunath had fair warning of being sued in Minnesota because he purposely directed his activities at Ulubiyo—a Minnesota resident being treated at a Minnesota facility by a Minnesota physician—when he interpreted the EKG results … As alleged in the complaint, Dr. Manjunath participated in the decision to discharge Ulubiyo from RiverView Health in Minnesota. Moreover, no one communicated the EKG results to Ulubiyo or Peterson. These facts are alleged to be factors that contributed to Ulubiyo’s death. Thus, we conclude that the connection of the cause of action to Dr.
Manjunath’s minimum contact with Minnesota supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction … the allegations set forth in the complaint, establish that Ulubiyo is a Minnesota tort victim. Thus, Minnesota has a significant interest in providing a forum for Peterson’s medical-malpractice claim. We therefore conclude that the district court did not
err in deciding that the interests of the forum state favor Minnesota exercising specific personal jurisdiction … Because no party has addressed convenience as to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, this issue is likewise forfeited. See Jundt, 12 N.W.3d at 204. But absent such forfeiture, we would nonetheless conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Minnesota is likely the most convenient forum for the parties and that this factor favors the exercise of personal jurisdiction. This is because (1) Peterson resides in Minnesota, (2) Dr. Frankwitz is a Minnesota physician, (3) Ulubiyo received treatment at RiverView Health, a Minnesota medical facility, and (4) Ulubiyo’s death occurred in Minnesota.”
The MInnesota appellate court held: “based on our de novo review of the five personal-jurisdiction factors, we conclude that Dr. Manjunath has sufficient minimum contact with Minnesota and that the district court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Dr. Manjunath is otherwise reasonable under concepts of fair play and substantial justice. We therefore discern no error in the district court’s denial of Dr. Manjunath’s motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Source Peterson v. Riverview Healthcare Association, dba RiverView Health, A24-0266, A24-0478.
If you or a loved one suffered a serious injury (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Minnesota or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Minnesota medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
