West Case Update

Treatment by Phone Enough to Create Specific Jurisdiction in State Where Patient Lived

Description
Court held that when therapy is provided across state lines by telephone, there is sufficient basis for the court in the state of the patient, who received the calls and treatment, to have specific jurisdiction over the parties offering therapy treatment.

Topic Court Procedure

Key Words
General Jurisdiction; Specific Jurisdiction; Contacts; Medical Therapy

C A S E S U M M A R Y

Facts
Jones lived in California. She met Williams, a licensed therapist who lived in New Mexico. For four years, Williams provided Jones weekly psychotherapy and dream counseling by telephone from New Mexico. Several times, Williams went to California to provide treatment there to Jones at her request. For a year, Williams’ wife, Ritzman, provided Jones weekly Shamanic counseling over the phone. Jones then sued Williams and Ritzman in federal court in California for medical malpractice. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Decision
Motion denied. Williams did not have sufficient contacts to approximate physical presence in California for courts there to have general jurisdiction. General jurisdiction applies where a defendant’s activities in the state are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” Williams did most counseling by phone; he traveled to California at Jones’ invitation a couple times to counsel her and to be a professor in residence at a California university during that period. He was not licensed in California and phone calls are not a physical presence in the state. Ritzman only talked to Jones by phone; they never met in California. While there were insufficient contacts for general jurisdiction, there was a sufficient basis for specific jurisdiction. This exists when: 1) the non-resident defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some affirmative act or conduct; 2) plaintiff’s claim just arise out of or result from defendant’s forum-related activities; and 3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Williams and Ritzman purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California as required to establish specific jurisdiction in California for medical malpractice proceedings. They knew that Jones would have felt benefit or harm in California from their therapy. Hence, defendants will have to defend themselves in California from the claims made by Jones.

Citation Jones v. Williams, ---F.Supp.2d--- (2009 WL 3241156, N.D. Calif., 2009)

Back to Court Procedure Listings

Treatment by Phone Enough to Create Specific Jurisdiction in State Where Patient Lived
Description	Court held that when therapy is provided across state lines by telephone, there is sufficient basis for the court in the state of the patient, who received the calls and treatment, to have specific jurisdiction over the parties offering therapy treatment.
Topic	Court Procedure
Key Words	General Jurisdiction; Specific Jurisdiction; Contacts; Medical Therapy
C A S E S U M M A R Y
Facts	Jones lived in California. She met Williams, a licensed therapist who lived in New Mexico. For four years, Williams provided Jones weekly psychotherapy and dream counseling by telephone from New Mexico. Several times, Williams went to California to provide treatment there to Jones at her request. For a year, Williams’ wife, Ritzman, provided Jones weekly Shamanic counseling over the phone. Jones then sued Williams and Ritzman in federal court in California for medical malpractice. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Decision	Motion denied. Williams did not have sufficient contacts to approximate physical presence in California for courts there to have general jurisdiction. General jurisdiction applies where a defendant’s activities in the state are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” Williams did most counseling by phone; he traveled to California at Jones’ invitation a couple times to counsel her and to be a professor in residence at a California university during that period. He was not licensed in California and phone calls are not a physical presence in the state. Ritzman only talked to Jones by phone; they never met in California. While there were insufficient contacts for general jurisdiction, there was a sufficient basis for specific jurisdiction. This exists when: 1) the non-resident defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some affirmative act or conduct; 2) plaintiff’s claim just arise out of or result from defendant’s forum-related activities; and 3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Williams and Ritzman purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California as required to establish specific jurisdiction in California for medical malpractice proceedings. They knew that Jones would have felt benefit or harm in California from their therapy. Hence, defendants will have to defend themselves in California from the claims made by Jones.
Citation	Jones v. Williams, ---F.Supp.2d--- (2009 WL 3241156, N.D. Calif., 2009)