Brandon Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12558, 2016 FED App. 0158P, 828 F.3d 488 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The deference typically accorded to a U.S. plaintiff's choice of a home forum is diminished under the doctrine of forum non conveniens when the plaintiff is domiciled abroad and the underlying events, witnesses, and evidence are located in the foreign jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Brandon Hefferan, a U.S. citizen, and his wife Sabine Hefferan, a German citizen, have lived together in Germany since 2002.
- In 2012, Brandon Hefferan underwent surgery in Germany.
- During the procedure, a surgical stapler allegedly malfunctioned, causing severe and permanent injuries.
- Brandon Hefferan subsequently required approximately twenty follow-up surgeries, all performed in Germany.
- The surgical stapler was manufactured in Mexico by Ethicon Endo-Surgery, a corporation headquartered and incorporated in Ohio.
- Ethicon's sole shareholder is Johnson & Johnson, a corporation headquartered and incorporated in New Jersey.
- All medical witnesses and records related to Brandon Hefferan's injury and treatment are located in Germany.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hefferans sued Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.
- The New Jersey district court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The Hefferans filed an amended complaint in the Ohio district court.
- The defendants again moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The Ohio district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The Hefferans, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of forum non conveniens permit a district court to dismiss a product liability lawsuit filed by a U.S. citizen domiciled in a foreign country, where the injury occurred and all related medical evidence is located, in favor of litigating in that foreign country?
Opinions:
Majority - Boggs, Circuit Judge
Yes. The district court's dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was not an abuse of discretion because Germany is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of public and private interests favors litigating there. A plaintiff's U.S. citizenship is not dispositive; it is a proxy for convenience, and the presumption of convenience is weakened when a U.S. plaintiff has been domiciled abroad for a significant period. Germany is an adequate forum because Ethicon is amenable to process there and the German legal system, despite procedural differences like the lack of jury trials or lower damages awards, provides a sufficient remedy. Furthermore, because a U.S. court applying choice-of-law principles would likely apply German law to the claims, including the loss of consortium claim which Germany does not recognize, the plaintiffs do not lose a remedy they would have otherwise had. The private interest factors (ease of access to witnesses and evidence) and public interest factors (Germany's strong local interest in an injury occurring within its borders) overwhelmingly favor dismissal.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the flexible, fact-intensive nature of the forum non conveniens analysis, particularly concerning U.S. citizens living abroad. It solidifies the principle that citizenship is merely a proxy for convenience and can be outweighed by a plaintiff's long-term foreign domicile and the location of the tort. The court's willingness to conduct a detailed, hypothetical choice-of-law analysis to determine the adequacy of the alternative forum sets a significant precedent. This approach prevents plaintiffs from using the loss of a specific claim (like loss of consortium) to defeat a forum non conveniens motion where that claim would have been barred by foreign law anyway, even in a U.S. court.
