SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION RE WHETHER FOREIGN DOCTOR SUBJECT TO CONNECTICUT JURISDICTION

CLARANCE J. JONES, JUDGE.

Judith Parras-Rosen, Administrator of the estate of the late John D. Rosen has brought this lawsuit in which she asserts that John D. Rosen's death was caused by medical negligence of several health care providers, including Dr. John F.X. Horan. Dr. Horan denies the claim that he was negligent. Furthermore, he asserts that he does not have sufficient contacts with the State of Connecticut for this court to have jurisdiction over him in this action.

The court has reviewed the parties' memoranda relative to the motions to dismiss (#120, and 121), addressed to the assertion that John F.X. Horan, a doctor of osteopathy, residing and practicing in Rhode Island, had insufficient contacts with Connecticut to subject him to the jurisdiction of this state for the adjudication of this medical malpractice claim against him. Dr. Horan's practice is with an entity known as Fallon Horan, D.O. in Rhode Island. In addition, the court has reviewed the affidavit of Dr. Horan, his deposition on this issue, and the pleadings.

The court finds the following facts.

John D. Rosen became a patient of Fallon Horan, D.O. in 1996 while residing in Rhode Island. When he presented to the practice on April 23, 2003 he had become a resident of Connecticut. On that date Dr. Horan prescribed medications for his heart condition and his recently diagnosed diabetes and referred him to cardiologist Edward Thomas, M.D. On May 27, 2003 John D. Rosen suffered a cardiac arrest at his home and died.

The treatment provided by Dr. Horan on April 23, 2003 was covered by insurance provided by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, situated in the State of Connecticut.

The plaintiff argues that Conn. Gem Stat. Sec. 52-59b authorizes this action against non-resident John Horan. The text of the statute appears below.

Sec. 52-59b. Jurisdiction of courts over nonresident individuals, foreign partnerships and foreign voluntary associations. Service of process. (a) As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, or over the executor or administrator of such nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, who in person or through an agent: (1) Transacts any business within the state; (2) commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; (3) commits a tortious act outside the state causing injury to person or property within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act, if such person or agent (A) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or (B) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; (4) owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state; or (5) uses a computer, as defined in subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 53-451 or a computer network, as defined in subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of said section, located within the state. (Emphasis added)

This court finds that doctor John Horan never practiced medicine in Connecticut; does not hold a license to practice in Connecticut; does not solicit business in Connecticut; and that he owns no property in Connecticut. The Court further finds that of the approximate 5000 patients in his practice in Rhode Island only four (4) patients reside in Connecticut, and that in the past 10 years he has not received any referrals from Connecticut practitioners or physicians. See Matto v. Dermatopathology Associates of New York, 55 Conn.App. 592, 739 A.2d 1284 (1999).

The Court also finds that an entity in Connecticut that provides a Connecticut resident with medical insurance coverage that is used to pay for medical services of a healthcare provider in another jurisdiction, as in this case, is an insufficient basis to subject that provider to the jurisdiction of Connecticut courts.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant John F.X. Horan's Motion to Dismiss Apportionment Complaint (#121) is granted.