## Facts

- Mary Thomas Stutsman, a Virginia resident employed in the District of Columbia, obtained health coverage through a District-based HMO, Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc.
- Kaiser contracted with Capital Area Permanente Medical Group, P.C., a District of Columbia professional corporation, to staff Kaiser facilities with physicians.
- Stutsman received care at a Kaiser facility in Springfield, Virginia, where Capital-employed physicians examined a breast nodule and diagnosed it as benign.
- Stutsman was later referred to a District of Columbia hospital, where a biopsy revealed the mass was malignant.
- Stutsman sued Kaiser and Capital in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging malpractice by Capital’s physicians and seeking to impose liability on Kaiser and Capital under respondeat superior; she did not sue the individual physicians.

## Issues

1. Under the District’s conflict-of-laws framework, whether District of Columbia law or Virginia law governs key aspects of the malpractice action, including limitations, pre-suit requirements, and damages limits.
2. Whether the Superior Court should dismiss the action under forum non conveniens because the alleged misdiagnosis occurred in Virginia and Virginia malpractice law was assertedly controlling.
3. Whether Virginia’s malpractice administrative prerequisites and statute of limitations apply to bar or require dismissal of the District-filed action.
4. Whether Virginia’s statutory cap on medical malpractice damages applies instead of District law.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and upheld applying District of Columbia law to the challenged issues.
- The court held that the defendants did not carry their burden to justify dismissal under forum non conveniens.
- The court concluded, under the District’s modified governmental-interest/most-significant-relationship analysis, that District law governed the disputed limitations- and malpractice-reform-related issues raised by defendants.
- The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits consistent with applying District law.

## Legal Principles

- The District determines governing law in tort disputes by a modified governmental-interest analysis aimed at selecting the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the dispute.
- In applying that approach, courts evaluate the jurisdictions’ competing policies and interests alongside their contacts with the parties and the events.
- A plaintiff’s choice of a District forum is given substantial weight; forum non conveniens dismissal requires a strong showing, based on private and public interest factors, that an alternative forum is clearly more appropriate.
- Where the District has substantial regulatory and remedial interests in conduct and liability of District-organized health care entities, District law may apply even if the alleged negligent treatment occurred in another jurisdiction.
- Under District choice-of-law principles, another jurisdiction’s malpractice procedural barriers and damages restrictions need not be imported when doing so would materially conflict with District policy choices governing local entities and local remedial interests.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a District-filed malpractice action against District health care corporations to proceed under District law, rejecting dismissal for inconvenience and declining to apply Virginia’s malpractice reforms—including pre-suit requirements, limitations defenses, and damages restrictions—despite the allegedly negligent treatment occurring in Virginia.


Kaiser-Georgetown Cmty. Health Plan, Inc. v. Stutsman, 491 A.2d 502 (D.C. 1985)