Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Stephen M. Schexnayder M.D., a resident of Arkansas, filed an interlocutory appeal from an order denying his special appearance in a medical malpractice lawsuit in which he contested the jurisdiction of the Texas court over him. The suit was filed against him by Shantrece Daniels, in her individual capacity, and as representative of the estate of her deceased daughter, Journee Daniels. The suit is based on events leading to Journee’s death June 11, 2003. Journee was hospitalized at Wadley Regional Medical Center in Texarkana in serious condition. On June 11, Wadley contacted Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH) in Little Rock, and Schexnayder, who was the intensive care unit’s attending physician at that time, approved the transfer on behalf of ACH. ACH was to provide transportation of the child to Little Rock. A transport team was dispatched to Texarkana which included two ACH employees and one resident physician, Barrett Lewis, M.D. Schexnayder did not personally go to Texarkana. The ACH team arrived at Wadley and took over Journee’s care in an attempt to stabilize her adequately for transport. Schexnayder directed the care to be given. During this process, Journee (who had already coded and been resuscitated at least once) again coded, and resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful. It was Schexnayder who ultimately made the decision that further resuscitation efforts would be futile. Journee died at Wadley. HOLDING:Affirmed. Under the specific facts of this case, where Schexnayder directed the details of Journee’s care and treatment in Texas, albeit by telephone calls initiated from Texas to him in Arkansas, and the patient died during such care and treatment, Schexnayder could have reasonably anticipated having to defend himself in a Texas court. Constitutionally adequate minimum contacts existed, the court concludes. Except for geographic considerations, there is no suggested reason why the case should be brought in Arkansas rather than Texas. Based on evidence that Schexnayder was the one who approved Journee’s transfer to ACH and was actively involved with the transport team in treating her as a patient in this state, the court concludes the contacts involving Schexnayder were not so attenuated as to violate concepts of due process. “Although we recognize the bright-line attraction of looking solely to the place where the calls originated as determining whether jurisdiction lies in Texas, that simplistic formula is not persuasive. . . . Other factors necessarily explain the nature of telephone conversations, and the question of whether the resident of one state first called another should not control in all situations.” The court concludes that Schexnayder’s contacts with Texas were sufficient in this particular instance to meet the requirements of due process and allow the litigation to proceed in this state. The court emphasizes that the team in this case was from Schexnayder’s own hospital and that it was working together on a person who had been accepted as a patient of that hospital. The court finds that general jurisdiction does not lie on these facts. “We do not find the testimony that Schexnayder talked on the telephone with doctors in Texas, even assisting those doctors in treatment of their patients, establishes either a continuous or systematic presence in the State of such a nature as to justify treating him as a person who might be haled into court in Texas.” Schexnayder’s biography, credentials and job description were all set out on the ACH Web site. The main thrust of the Web site is informational in nature � which would necessarily lead to the potential for use of ACH for its specialized purpose. The evidence shows that it was possible to interact via e-mail with the site, that physicians could register for continuing medical education on the site, and that individuals could apply online for jobs. The evidence does not indicate that doctors interacted on patient care online. “Even if we ascribed all of the actions on the website to Schexnayder, this level of connectivity simply does not rise to the level or purpose of interaction that would justify finding that Schexnayder had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of Texas courts. The evidence does not reach the higher level necessary to justify a finding that the minimum contacts necessary to support a finding that the website, either alone or in combination with the other evidence subjected him to the general jurisdiction of the court.” OPINION:Ross, J.; Morriss, CJ, Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.