30.12.2013 Views

JOSEPH COHEN and GALIT DADOUN-COHEN, Individually and in ...

JOSEPH COHEN and GALIT DADOUN-COHEN, Individually and in ...

JOSEPH COHEN and GALIT DADOUN-COHEN, Individually and in ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The mere fact that these physicians’ offices are located <strong>in</strong><br />

Philadelphia does not constitute sufficient bus<strong>in</strong>ess contacts<br />

to support venue. There is no evidence that the two groups,<br />

total<strong>in</strong>g six to eight physicians, are cl<strong>in</strong>ics or branch offices<br />

of Appellee [Ab<strong>in</strong>gdon Memorial] Hospital. All treatment<br />

for referrals is conducted at the Montgomery County<br />

facility, patients of the hospital cannot seek hospital care at<br />

the groups’ offices, <strong>and</strong> there is no ambulance service to<br />

these offices. Thus, it is apparent that Appellee Hospital’s<br />

relationship with these small Philadelphia County practice<br />

groups is <strong>in</strong>cidental to its ma<strong>in</strong> goal of provid<strong>in</strong>g hospital<br />

care <strong>in</strong> Montgomery County.<br />

Goodman, 844 A.2d, at 1255. To create venue, a physician’s or hospital’s contacts <strong>in</strong> the<br />

jurisdiction must be “essential to the survival of the hospital,” “<strong>in</strong>tegral to [the] hospital’s<br />

existence,” <strong>and</strong> with the purpose “to exp<strong>and</strong> or conduct bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>in</strong>” the county at issue.<br />

Id., at 1256.<br />

Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs <strong>in</strong> this matter fail to meet the Goodman test <strong>in</strong> two ways. First, they do<br />

not allege that Rothman or Woman Wise Midwifery ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> “branch offices,” Id., or<br />

offices of any k<strong>in</strong>d, at the Maternal Wellness Center <strong>in</strong> Philadelphia County. Second,<br />

they do not allege that they sought hospital care by Rothman at the Maternal Wellness<br />

Center. Rothman is clearly identified <strong>in</strong> the Compla<strong>in</strong>t as a practitioner with Woman<br />

Wise Midwifery at Lankenau Hospital <strong>in</strong> Montgomery County. (Compla<strong>in</strong>t, 6).<br />

Furthermore, Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs do not allege that any treatment by Rothman occurred at the<br />

Maternal Wellness Center; but they do allege that the “<strong>in</strong>itial visit” <strong>and</strong> subsequent<br />

“office visits” with Rothman occurred at the Woman Wise Midwifery facility at<br />

Lankenau Hospital. (Id., at 31, 34). Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs allege a bare “contact” with Rothman,<br />

without stat<strong>in</strong>g where or how the contact was made, dur<strong>in</strong>g which they “discussed [their]<br />

case” with her. (Id., at 30). Because there is no plead<strong>in</strong>g expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g how this<br />

Philadelphia “contact” is “essential to the survival of” Woman Wise Midwifery <strong>and</strong><br />

10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!