## Facts

- Martin C. Rosenthal and his wife and children were New York residents and domiciliaries.
- Rosenthal underwent surgery in Massachusetts performed by Dr. Kenneth W. Warren at New England Baptist Hospital and died following the procedure.
- The hospital treated many out-of-state patients, including a material number of New York residents, and engaged in broad fundraising beyond Massachusetts.
- Elaine Rosenthal, as executrix of Rosenthal’s estate, sued Dr. Warren and the hospital in New York for wrongful death and medical malpractice, seeking approximately $1.25 million.
- The hospital was served in New York; jurisdiction over Dr. Warren was asserted via quasi in rem attachment limited to available insurance coverage.
- Massachusetts wrongful-death law limited damages by minimum/maximum amounts and culpability, with a $50,000 maximum; New York wrongful-death law allowed recovery without a fixed cap based on pecuniary loss.
- The case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, where the plaintiff obtained partial summary judgment that New York law governed the damages issue.

## Issues

1. Under New York choice-of-law rules applicable in diversity, whether New York or Massachusetts substantive law governs the wrongful-death damages issue when the decedent and survivors are New York domiciliaries but the treatment and death occurred in Massachusetts.
2. Whether Massachusetts’ wrongful-death damages limitation should be applied as the law of the place of the tort, or disregarded in favor of New York’s policy of full compensation for its domiciliaries.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order applying New York law to the wrongful-death damages question.
- The court held that Massachusetts’ statutory damages limitation did not govern and did not cap the plaintiff’s potential recovery.
- The court rejected defendants’ argument that the parties’ treatment relationship in Massachusetts implied an intent to apply Massachusetts law absent an express choice-of-law agreement.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court sitting in diversity applies the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine the governing substantive law.
- Under New York tort conflicts doctrine, rules aimed at loss allocation (including statutory damages caps) may be governed by the state with the greatest interest in the allocation issue, often the parties’ domicile, rather than automatically by the place of the tort.
- New York’s interest in compensating New York domiciliaries for wrongful death can outweigh the locus state’s interest in limiting damages when the losses are primarily borne in New York.
- The mere fact that medical services were rendered in another state does not, without an explicit agreement, establish a binding choice of that state’s law for malpractice-related wrongful-death damages.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that New York’s choice-of-law approach required applying New York wrongful-death damages law, not Massachusetts’ capped scheme, because the damages limitation was a loss-allocation rule and New York had the stronger interest in compensating the New York-domiciled decedent’s survivors.


Rosenthal v. Warren, 475 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1973)