AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• New Mexico residents Nellie Gonzales and Fernando Gallegos underwent bariatric surgery performed by Dr. Eldo Frezza in Lubbock, Texas, at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, where Dr. Frezza was employed. Both plaintiffs were employees of the State of New Mexico and covered by Presbyterian Health Plan. They were directed to Dr. Frezza by Presbyterian, as he was the only bariatric surgeon in the Presbyterian network at that time. Following the surgeries, the plaintiffs sued Dr. Frezza for medical malpractice and Presbyterian for breach of contract and negligent referral (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that Dr. Frezza and Presbyterian engaged in business within New Mexico by encouraging residents to travel to Texas for surgery. They claimed Dr. Frezza used advertising, testimonials from New Mexican patients, and a special relationship with Presbyterian to attract New Mexico residents for treatment. Plaintiffs also alleged Dr. Frezza owned property in New Mexico and held a New Mexico medical license, which constituted doing business within the state (paras 10-11).
• Defendant (Dr. Frezza): Contended he did not solicit patients from New Mexico, never practiced medicine in New Mexico, and was not aware of any advertising activities in New Mexico. He stated his treatment of New Mexico residents was due to his status as a participating provider with Presbyterian, not personal solicitation or business transactions within New Mexico (paras 12-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether Dr. Frezza has sufficient contacts with the State of New Mexico to permit the state courts to assert either general or specific personal jurisdiction over him (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings to address whether personal jurisdiction exists based on the arrangement between New Mexico Presbyterian Health Plan and Texas Tech Physicians Associates through which Dr. Frezza was referred New Mexico residents for care (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael D. Bustamante writing, concluded that most of the asserted contacts with New Mexico were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over Dr. Frezza. However, the court found the record on appeal insufficient to address whether personal jurisdiction exists based on the specific arrangement between New Mexico Presbyterian Health Plan and Texas Tech Physicians Associates. The court noted that Dr. Frezza's activities, such as owning property in New Mexico, holding a New Mexico medical license, and having a website, were not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. The court also discussed the need for further proceedings to clarify the nature of Dr. Frezza's relationship with Presbyterian Health Plan and whether this constitutes sufficient contact with New Mexico for specific jurisdiction. The court emphasized the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction and the importance of fair play and substantial justice in the exercise of personal jurisdiction (paras 15-41).