{
  "id": 708345,
  "name": "VALLEY WIDE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. David GRAHAM, Personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Angel Renee Archuleta Graham, and Clarissa D. Archuleta, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Valley Wide Health Services, Inc. v. Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham",
  "decision_date": "1987-06-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 17097",
  "first_page": "71",
  "last_page": "73",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 N.M. 71"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "738 P.2d 1316"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "12 L.Ed.2d 1283",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 U.S. 235",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6162253
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "253",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "1240",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/357/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N.M. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580006
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "57"
        },
        {
          "page": "58",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/102/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 U.S. 310",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6157001
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1945,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316"
        },
        {
          "page": "158"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/326/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.M. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1594946
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/104/0143-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 6016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.798,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3446250203321504e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6319876178109226
    },
    "sha256": "2eecc2f8ff054e93a5be8045f6d13606dc3580a2de242a1fff69d1a350f4459a",
    "simhash": "1:40d9bf0857a5574a",
    "word_count": 953
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:22.270695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SCARBOROUGH, C.J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and STOWERS and RANSOM, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "VALLEY WIDE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. David GRAHAM, Personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Angel Renee Archuleta Graham, and Clarissa D. Archuleta, Respondents."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Justice.\nPlaintiff-respondent David Graham filed a wrongful death action in New Mexico district court against a Colorado health care clinic. The trial court granted the motion of defendant-petitioner Valley Wide Health Services, Inc. (Valley) to dismiss under SCRA 1986, 1-012(B)(1), determining it lacked personal jurisdiction over Valley because Valley did not have sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico to satisfy constitutional due process.\nThe court of appeals reversed the trial court. We granted certiorari and, upon review of the petition, response thereto, and the court of appeals file, we reverse the court of appeals.\nThe only issue before us is whether Valley had sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico to satisfy constitutional due process and thus to allow New Mexico to exercise personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-16.\nValley is a non-profit Colorado corporation not licensed to do business in New Mexico. It operates five health care clinics in Southern Colorado, and has never operated a health clinic in New Mexico. Valley does not advertise in New Mexico, is not listed in any telephone book in New Mexico, and does not actively solicit patients from New Mexico. Medical services are provided to anyone who comes to the clinics, including New Mexico residents. Less than 1% of Valley\u2019s total patients have been New Mexico residents and, in 1983, only 1.38% of Valley\u2019s long distance telephone calls were made from the clinics to New Mexico numbers. On occasion the doctors at the clinics would give advice over the telephone.\nGraham, a New Mexico resident, telephoned Valley\u2019s San Luis Health Center to make an appointment for his daughter who was running a high temperature. Later that day, Graham took his daughter to the Colorado clinic where she was examined by Dr. Ronald Gooder. Dr. Gooder determined she had a virus, and prescribed cold baths and alternate doses of aspirin and Tylenol. Two days later Graham telephoned Dr. Gooder at the clinic to advise that his daughter\u2019s temperature was still high, and that she had begun to vomit. Dr. Gooder, who was not immediately available, returned Graham\u2019s telephone call at Graham\u2019s New Mexico residence. It was the doctor\u2019s opinion that the virus was running its course and that Graham should continue the recommended treatment. The next day Graham\u2019s daughter died of peritonitis, secondary to pneumonia.\nThe court of appeals held that although Graham\u2019s daughter was taken to Colorado to be seen by the doctor, treatment was originally prescribed in Colorado and as a result of the doctor-patient relationship which was established in Colorado, Dr. Gooder was compelled to make the telephone call to Graham at his New Mexico residence; and that single act of returning Graham\u2019s telephone call to New Mexico was sufficient for personal jurisdiction.\nIn order to invest the courts of this State with personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the act plaintiff complains of must meet a three-part test: (1) defendant must do one of the acts enumerated in our long-arm statute, NMSA 1978, Section 38-l-16(A); (2) plaintiffs cause of action must arise from that act, Section 38-l-16(C); and (3) defendant must have minimum contacts with New Mexico sufficient to satisfy constitutional due process. Visarraga v. Gates Rubber Co., 104 N.M. 143, 717 P.2d 596 (Ct.App.1986).\nTo subject a non-resident defendant to personal jurisdiction, he must have \u201ccertain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend \u2018traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u2019 \u201d International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). We have equated \u201ctransaction of any business\u201d or \u201ccommission of a tortious act within this state\u201d as enumerated in our long-arm statute, with sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process. Customwood Mfg., Inc. v. Downey Const. Co., 102 N.M. 56, 691 P.2d 57 (1984).\nWe recognize that in some cases a single act performed within New Mexico can be a sufficient minimum contact to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in this state; however, as we noted in Custom-wood, \u201c[a] central factor in determining whether these \u2018minimum contacts\u2019 were established is the degree to which defendant purposefully initiated its activity within the state.\u201d 102 N.M. at 57, 691 P.2d at 58 (emphasis added). To sustain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, defendant, \u201c[i]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law.\u201d Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 12 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) (emphasis added).\nDr. Gooder did not \u201cpurposefully initiate\u201d activity in the state, \u201cthus invoking the benefits and protections\u201d of New Mexico laws. Id. He did return Graham\u2019s telephone call to a telephone number in New Mexico, but only after a doctor-patient relationship had been established in Colorado, and after Graham had left a message and request with the doctor\u2019s answering service. This single telephone call lacks the purposefulness of defendant\u2019s contact which is demanded by due process. See Custom Mfg., Inc. v. Downey Const. Co.\nWe reverse the court of appeals and affirm the trial court\u2019s dismissal of the complaint.\nSCARBOROUGH, C.J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and STOWERS and RANSOM, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALTERS, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Miller, Stratvert, Torgerson and Brandt, P.A., Alan C. Torgerson, Alice Tomlinson Lorenz, Albuquerque, for petitioner.",
      "Lopez, Chavez and Graham, P.C., Anthony G. Lopez, Taos, Adele Graham, Santa Fe, for respondents."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "738 P.2d 1316\nVALLEY WIDE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. David GRAHAM, Personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Angel Renee Archuleta Graham, and Clarissa D. Archuleta, Respondents.\nNo. 17097.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJune 30, 1987.\nMiller, Stratvert, Torgerson and Brandt, P.A., Alan C. Torgerson, Alice Tomlinson Lorenz, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nLopez, Chavez and Graham, P.C., Anthony G. Lopez, Taos, Adele Graham, Santa Fe, for respondents."
  },
  "file_name": "0071-01",
  "first_page_order": 111,
  "last_page_order": 113
}