Jurisdiction (Personal)

• Pages: 80-82

Page 80

Most of the Plaintiff s are Panamanian cancer patients who sought treatment at the Instituto Oncologico Nacional (ION) in Panama City, Panama in 2000. This is the third lawsuit they have broughtPage 81 in the U.S. See also 2005 International Law Update 68. The ION treated the Plaintiff s using a Theratron 780C Teletherapy Unit (TU ) in conjunction with a Treatment Planning System (TPS). The TU is a radiation device for treating cancer patients, and the TPS is a computer software system used to calculate appropriate dosages. Due to the alleged negligence of ION physicians, they had applied incorrect calculations in treating Plaintiff s; these errors caused many serious injuries and several deaths from radiation over-exposure.

When the Panamanian government found out about the incidents, it asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to investigate along with a group of doctors from the MDA Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. Their reports attributed the injuries and deaths to misuse of the TPS. As a result, the Panamanian authorities stripped a number of physicians of their Panamanian medical licenses and convicted two of negligent homicide.

In 2001, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for wrongful death and negligence in a Missouri state Court. Multidata (Def. 1) of Missouri manufactured the TPS, while MDS (Def. 2) , which made the Theratron Unit, is a Canadian Corporation. Defendants moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that because the Plaintiffs and evidence are located in Panama that is the appropriate forum. Plaintiff s countered that Panama was not in fact an available alternative forum; the Panamanian court system is allegedly corrupt and would not accept a suit which a foreign court had dismissed.

Before the Missouri trial court reached a decision, however, one Plaintiff filed a petition in a Panamanian court against Defendants, which court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. On January 8, 2004, the Missouri court dismissed the action without prejudice on forum non conveniens grounds. The court ruled that Plaintiffs could re-file in Missouri if Panama declined jurisdiction upon a re-filing. Plaintiff s appealed, and the higher court affirmed. When the Panamanian appeals court likewise affirmed its prior dismissal, Plaintiff s fi led four new suits in Missouri. The state court dismissed once again..

Instead of refi ling in Panama, Plaintiff s sued in Texas federal court under claims similar to those made...