Re: Shoulder dystocia case -- A Diversity Of Juristiction Case
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Tue Apr 10 11:44:23 2001
so perhaps the solution to many problems with tort-friendly malpractice
states is to establish resident in another state to create a "diversity
of jurisdiction" issue?
art
At Sun, 08 Apr 2001, Dean Huffman wrote:
>
>..
>
>The answer to your question is "diversity of juristiction". In cases where
>the parties are residents of different states, the United States
>Consitiution provides that Congress can make laws whereby the case.
>although is is a case involving state issues and state law, can be tried in
>federal rather than state court. I presume the reason for this provision is
>that when the constituion was drafted, there was worry that an out-of-state
>party might not get fair treatment in a state court when the other party is
>a resident of that state. Therefore, the constituion provided for the case
>to be tried in a federal court. Currently such cases are limited, I
>believe, to cases where there is at least $50,000.00 involved, not
>difficult in a medical liability case. A party to a case will often try to
>get the case into a federal court if he thinks it is a better forum in
>which to litigate. The opinion, in the second paragraph, states, "The
>Costantinos filed a diversity action against Dr. Herzog in the United
>States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ..."
>
>Article III, Section 2, Clasue 1 of the United States Constituion provides:
>
>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
>under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
>or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
>Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty
>and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States
>shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a
>State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different
>States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of
>different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign
>States, Citizens or Subjects.
>
>Note the part, "between Citizens of different States".
>
>This clause was partially modified by the 11th amendment which provides
>"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
>to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
>United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of
>any Foreign State." This doctorine was recently extended by the US Supreme
>Court to prohibit suits by a citizen of a state against that same state. It
>was the case where the woman with breast cancer had been discriminated
>against by the state of Alabama in her employment, thereby invalidating the
>"Americans Wwith Disabilities Act" in so far as it applies to actions
>against a state or state agencies. See BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY
>OF ALABAMA et al. v. GARRETT et al., No. 99—1240. Argued October 11, 2000,
>Decided February 21, 2001, United States Supreme Court, (Cite as: 531 U. S.
>____ (2001)). I can provide a copy in PDF format to anybody who is interested.
>
>Interestingly, the law which places limits on judgements in Kansas (tort
>reform) was validated in a diversity of juristiction case. The case was a
>Kansas traffic accident case which, becuase the parties lived in different
>states, was tried in a federal (rather than a state) court in Kansas. The
>federal judge was required to follow Kansas law, however, since the
>accident occured in Kansas. Not knowing whtether or not the Kansas
>legislative cap on tort damages was consitutional under Kansas law, he
>certified the case to the Kansas supreme court. The Kansas supreme court
>replied in Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 789
>P.2d 541, that indeed the Knasas legislative cap on tort awards was
>constitutional. The federal judge then proceeded with the case, but the net
>effect was that Kansas tort reform was upheld by the Kansas supreme court.
>(I can provide a copy of the opinoin upon request.)
>
>This is probably more than you wanted to know, but it explains why a New
>York state case was decided in a federal court.
>
>--
>Dean Huffman
>
>- - - -
>
>Re: Shoulder dystocia case -- RPLY
>
>From: Robert J. Woolley (wooll005@tc.umn.edu)
>Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:47:56 -0500
>
>> - - - -
>>
>> SUMMARY:
>>
>> Parents, as natural guardians of child and as parents, brought diversity
>> action alleging malpractice for injury to child during labor. Following
>> jury trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
>> New York, Gleeson, J., entered judgment for doctor.
>
>Can anybody explain why this case was in federal court to begin with?
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Woolley
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>St. Paul, Minnesota
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>GIC
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it
>is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not
>become generally known."
>
> -- The alarmed wife of the Bishop of Worcester,
> upon hearing about Charles Darwin's "The
> Origin of Species"
>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
|
|
