Shiley Wins Case Limiting Foreigners’ Right to Sue : Jurisprudence: The Irvine company, blamed for about 250 deaths tied to defective artificial heart valves, cannot be sued in California by survivors of two Scandinavian alleged victims, the state Supreme Court rules.

The state Supreme Court, limiting foreign access to California courtrooms, ruled Thursday that the maker of a defective heart valve blamed for about 250 deaths cannot be sued in this state by the survivors of two alleged victims from Scandinavia.

The justices unanimously upheld lower court rulings that required the two families to return to courts in Sweden and Norway to pursue damage suits against Shiley Inc. of Irvine.

The decision came as a victory for a coalition of business groups, which backed Shiley in the case and warned that California firms would be at a competitive disadvantage if forced to defend suits here for injuries occurring in another country.

More than 350 suits--about half of them brought by foreigners--are pending in California against the valve-maker, representing millions of dollars in potential damages.

The justices noted that plaintiffs from elsewhere often seek trial in California, where generally pro-plaintiff laws and generous juries increase the chances of big punitive or emotional-distress damage awards against defendants.

But the court, in an opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk, concluded that the advantages for plaintiffs should not be considered in determining where trial will be held. That should be weighed only if there is no legal recourse at all in the plaintiff’s country, the court said.

Mosk said that the burden on state courts would be “considerable” if the complex cases against the valve-maker were tried here. Further, he said, any future improper conduct by the manufacturer could still be deterred through the pending actions filed by Californians.

More than 80,000 people received mechanical heart valves made by Shiley, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., before the devices were removed from the market in 1985 and 1986. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say that more than 400 of the valves have fractured or disintegrated, leading to death in most cases. Waves of lawsuits are still being filed by survivors of dead heart patients, and by patients themselves claiming emotional distress over a still-functioning device that they fear could suddenly fail.

While many of the lawsuits have been settled, many others--mostly by patients--are pending. Shiley has denied wrongdoing and contended that the benefits of the valve outweighed the relatively small risk of failure.

Malcolm E. Wheeler, an attorney for Shiley, welcomed Thursday’s decision, saying it would discourage “forum shopping” in California courts by foreigners who should be bringing suit in their homelands, where they claim to have suffered injury.

Wheeler said that while the ruling involved deaths blamed on defective heart valves, it also appeared to bar suits here by foreigners claiming distress from devices that are still functioning.

Bruce A. Finzen, a lawyer for the Scandinavian plaintiffs, disagreed, saying he believed the ruling would still allow foreigners to proceed with emotional distress claims in California. But he expressed dismay that the ruling could restrict lawsuits in product liability cases generally.

“This sets up the opportunity for a manufacturer to locate in California, make some dangerous and harmful products and not ever have to face suit here, so long as they are exporting those products overseas,” Finzen said.

The ruling centered on the discretionary power of judges to refuse to hear a case when the convenience of the parties and public policy would be better served in another legal forum, such as another country.

Negligence suits were filed in Orange County by the families of Sigmund Stanvik and Mikael Karlsson, who died allegedly from the failure of Shiley’s implanted heart valves.

Shiley argued that the suits should be tried in Sweden and Norway because that was where the plaintiffs lived, and where the valves were sold and the deaths occurred. The families said the suits should be heard in California, where the valves were designed, manufactured and packaged.

Fred Main, general counsel for the California Chamber of Commerce, said Thursday’s ruling “will prevent our state courts from being clogged with cases of foreign plaintiffs with little if any connection to California.”

In other action, the justices let stand an appellate court ruling denying custody rights to a woman who agreed to bear a child for a Napa County couple for $10,000. The appeal court decision came in the first surrogate-parent case to reach an appellate panel.