Photo: Maridav/Shutterstock.com

An attorney for a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary being sued over its pelvic mesh products told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday that recent case law from the U.S. Supreme Court makes clear that Pennsylvania courts have no business handling lawsuits from out-of-state plaintiffs when neither the defendant nor the conduct underlying the claims are connected to the state, which has been a jurisdiction of choice for plaintiffs.

The justices heard oral arguments in the closely watched case of Hammons v. Ethicon, which is expected to provide broad guidance to lower courts grappling with the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California.

At the argument the state's high court dug into the specifics of exactly what it may take to establish jurisdiction for out-of-state plaintiffs to sue in Pennsylvania, seen by many as a jurisdiction of choice for plaintiffs.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, hailed by the defense bar as a "game-changing" pronunciation on jurisdiction, made clear that out-of-state plaintiffs can't sue companies where the defendants aren't considered to be "at home" or haven't conducted business directly linked to the claimed injury.

Much of the argument session Tuesday focused on how closely plaintiff Patricia Hammons' claims were related to conduct that took place in Pennsylvania, how the due process considerations under Bristol-Myers Squibb interact with Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, and at what stages these issues should be litigated going forward.

Early in the argument session Robert Heim of Dechert, who is representing the defendant Ethicon, said there was "a lot of loose language in [Bristol-Myers Squibb]," but, noting that Hammons' claims against a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer were dismissed later in litigation, said the jurisdictional decision should ultimately hinge on claims that make it to the final stages of litigation.

Justice Christine Donohue, however, questioned what that would mean in terms of litigating and reviewing cases that may face this issue.

"Are you suggesting that this type of jurisdiction, this personal jurisdiction, is a moving target?" she asked, following up with questions about whether that means these issues need to be vetted at the preliminary objection stage to avoid wasting the trial court's time litigating cases where there is no jurisdiction.

Donohue further noted that, in making jurisdictional arguments on appeal, the parties had cited testimony from a Pennsylvania-based doctor who had tested the mesh products, and asked whether the court should use that information in making its decision, since it clearly would not have been available at the preliminary objections phase.

"I'm just trying to find some consistency here," she said.

Heim responded that he had no problem with the court evaluating the doctor's testimony.

Hammons' case, like the nearly 100 other pelvic mesh cases pending against Ethicon in Philadelphia, is based on claims that the defendant failed to warn about its defective mesh products. Ethicon, which is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has contended that Hammons' claims were not sufficiently connected to activities that happened in Pennsylvania, and so, since Hammons is an Indiana resident and Ethicon's principal place of business is New Jersey, Philadelphia did not have jurisdiction to handle the case.

The plaintiffs, however, have argued that the claims are sufficiently connected to Pennsylvania, by pointing to the role that Secant Medical, a Bucks County company, played in developing the mesh and the fact that Ethicon worked with an Allentown doctor to test the products.

Those connections were again scrutinized by the justices Tuesday.

One justice, Max Baer, suggested that the fact that Ethicon contracted with a doctor in Allentown to test the product could provide a sufficient connection to the Keystone State.

"You've got to cut with a really sharp knife" to say that the testing did not impact the design, Baer said. "Why are you testing if not to comment on the design?"

Heim, however, told the justices the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence showing that anything the Allentown doctor did impacted the design decisions that were made at the Ethicon headquarters in New Jersey. Heim likewise argued that Secant only followed Ethicon's direct specifications.

"They're a component parts manufacturer," he said.

Heim said that, under the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision, courts should also consider whether a state has a regulatory interest in resolving the issues that are raised.

"It's hard to see what Pennsylvania's regulatory interest is in that dispute," Heim said, noting that, along with Hammons and Ethicon both haling from out of state, the case was largely governed by Indiana law.

Plaintiffs appellate counsel Charles "Chip" Becker of Kline & Specter said the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision did not mark a sea change in how courts should evaluate jurisdiction, but simply applied longstanding principles to the pharmaceutical arena. Any questions about federalism and whether states need to have a regulatory interest in deciding an issue have been a part of the jurisdictional consideration since the 1980s, he said.

Becker added that Pennsylvania's long-arm statute grants jurisdiction in any case that meets minimal due process requirements.

According to Becker, the jurisdiction issue boils down to Ethicon's choice to work with facilities in Pennsylvania, "the price of which," he said, "is personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania."