Susan Cox, a resident of Albion, Washington, died from an overdose allegedly caused by over-prescription of pharmaceutical drugs by her primary care doctor, Patricia Marciano, and her employer, Gritman Medical Center, an Idaho-based medical facility. Susan and her husband, Mark Cox, filed a wrongful-death and survivor action in the Eastern District of Washington. The defendants, who are Idaho residents, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to transfer venue to Idaho. The district court denied jurisdictional discovery regarding general jurisdiction and dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the forum or direct their activities to Washington. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the defendants' cross-border business practices and compliance with Washington law regarding prescription transmission established sufficient contacts.
Judge Forrest, writing for the panel, analyzed personal jurisdiction under Washington's long-arm statute and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court first addressed the long-arm statute, predicting that the Washington Supreme Court would interpret the 'transaction of business' provision to cover all business transactions except those that are random, fortuitous, or attenuated. The court found that the defendants' repeated transmission of prescriptions to Washington pharmacies satisfied this standard. Regarding due process, the court applied the three-part test for specific jurisdiction: minimum contacts, relatedness, and reasonableness. For minimum contacts, the court distinguished this case from Wright v. Yackley, where a doctor's single prescription transmission to a patient who moved states was insufficient. Here, Dr. Marciano maintained a six-year relationship with a Washington resident, knew of her residency, and systematically transmitted prescriptions to Washington pharmacies in compliance with Washington law. This created 'continuing obligations' to forum residents, satisfying purposeful availment. The court also found that Gritman Medical Center, which advertised in Washington and served Washington patients, had similar contacts. On relatedness, the court held that the claims arose out of the defendants' contacts with Washington because the prescriptions transmitted to Washington pharmacies were central to the alleged malpractice. Finally, on reasonableness, the court found that the defendants failed to show that exercising jurisdiction would violate fair play and substantial justice, noting that the burden on the defendants was not compelling and that Washington has a strong interest in protecting its residents from medical harm.
The case is remanded to the Eastern District of Washington for further proceedings on the merits of the wrongful-death and survivor action. The decision clarifies that medical providers who systematically serve cross-border patients and comply with the forum state's laws regarding prescription transmission may be subject to personal jurisdiction in that state, even if the medical services were physically rendered in another state. It leaves open the question of general jurisdiction for Gritman but confirms specific jurisdiction is sufficient to proceed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download