## Facts

- Florida residents Lisajane and Kevin Romer sought genetic testing to determine Tay–Sachs carrier status before conceiving a child.
- A University of Miami (Florida) physician drew Romer’s blood sample in Florida and, due to staffing shortages, sent it to Thomas Jefferson University (Pennsylvania) for analysis.
- Thomas Jefferson University performed the testing in Pennsylvania and transmitted a written report and analysis back to the University of Miami in Florida.
- The report was used in Florida to counsel the Romers and allegedly incorrectly indicated that Romer was not a Tay–Sachs carrier.
- The Romers conceived a child who was born with Tay–Sachs disease and sued, alleging negligent testing and reporting caused injury in Florida.
- Thomas Jefferson University, with no physical presence in Florida, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s long-arm statute permits specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state laboratory whose testing occurred outside Florida but whose report was transmitted into and used in Florida, causing injury in Florida.
2. Whether asserting jurisdiction over the laboratory satisfies due process minimum-contacts and fairness requirements.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Statutory jurisdiction existed under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(f)2 (1995), not § 48.193(1)(f)1.
- Due process was satisfied because the laboratory’s contacts were purposeful and it could reasonably anticipate being sued in Florida based on its conduct directed to Florida.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(f)2, Florida may exercise jurisdiction for injury in Florida arising from out-of-state acts when products, materials, or things processed or serviced by the defendant are used or consumed in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.
- A defendant establishes minimum contacts when it purposefully directs activity toward Florida and the dispute arises from that activity; foreseeability turns on whether the defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into Florida court.
- An appellate court may affirm a correct result on a different legal ground than the one relied on by the trial court.

## Conclusion

Florida courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania laboratory because its processed work product—testing and an interpretive report—was sent into Florida for medical use and allegedly caused injury to Florida residents, and the laboratory’s conduct created constitutionally sufficient, purposeful contacts with Florida.


Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Romer, 710 So. 2d 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1998)