An state appeals panel has ruled Cook County courts have jurisdiction, in a medical malpractice suit, over a company based outside Illinois which made an allegedly defective component included in a medical device which was fully manufactured and sold by another company.
The Dec. 3 decision was penned by Justice Mary Mikva, with concurrence from justices Daniel Pierce and Sharon Oden Johnson, of the Illinois First District Appellate Court. The ruling favored Pattie A. Harding in her 2017 lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against Confluent Medical Technologies. The suit said Confluent was based in California, but Confluent's website said its headquarters are in Scottsdale, Arizona, with two locations in California.
In 2010, Harding had an OptEase filter device implanted in her abdomen to prevent blood clots from traveling from her extremities to her heart and lungs, according to court papers. However, several years later, computerized tomography scans showed the device had moved out of place, perforated Harding's inferior vena cava vein, and had broken apart, with a piece lodging in her heart, the suit said.
Harding sued Confluent, alleging the device was defective. She also sued Johnson & Johnson, Cordis Corporation and her physician Gail Susan Smith. The device was made by Cordis, with its major component, a nitinol filter, fashioned by Confluent. Nitinol is also known as nickel titanium. Cordis sold the devices in Illinois and elsewhere, according to court documents.
Confluent asked Associate Judge Gerald Cleary to drop them from the suit, claiming there was no jurisdiction to sue them in an Illinois state court, because they do not do business in the state. Confluent said they manufactured the nitinol components in California until 2010, thereafter making them in Costa Rica, from where they were shipped to Mexico for Cordis.
In December 2020, Cleary refused to dismiss Confluent.
"Other than Illinois and California there does not appear to be any other forum that would have an interest in the controversy. Because the incident occurred in Illinois and involved an individual living in Illinois, Illinois has a substantial interest in this dispute that implicates the societal concerns of product liability and safe medical care, issues that are clearly of interest to the citizens of Illinois," Cleary declared.
Confluent appealed.
Justice Mikva determined Confluent plainly does business in Illinois, through Cordis and on its own.
"The sole market for Confluent’s nitinol components for the OptEase filters was through Cordis’s nationwide sales and the only way Confluent’s custom-made nitinol components for the OptEase filters would ever reach the final consumer in Illinois, or anywhere else, was through Cordis," Mikva wrote.
Mikva added, "Cordis was in effect a distributor for Confluent in terms of placing its product into the stream of commerce."
Mikva further found Confluent's transactions in Illinois were also less roundabout.
"It is clear there were a significant number of direct sales by Confluent of nitinol products used for medical devices in Illinois, in addition to the Cordis sales of the OptEase filter in this state," Mikva said, noting Confluent enjoyed $2 million in sales between 2011 and 2017 to two companies in Illinois.
Mikva also pointed out Confluent did not present evidence that litigating the suit in Illinois would be a burden.
Harding has been represented by David R. Nordwall, of the Law Office of David R. Nordwall, of Chicago.
Confluence has been defended by H. Patrick Morris, Garrett L. Boehm Jr. and David F. Fanning, of Johnson & Bell, of Chicago.