Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was a circuit court order directing the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, the Bureau for Behavioral Health and Health Facilities (DHHR) to restore access without limitation to patient and patient records to patient advocates working at Sharpe and Bateman Hospitals, the State’s two psychiatric hospitals. The DHHR appealed, arguing that the circuit court order violated both the patients’ constitutional rights to privacy and the Federal Health Insurance Portability and accountability Act (HIPAA). The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to restore the access afforded to the patient advocates to the level they experienced prior to June 2014, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the DHRR’s revocation of patient advocate access to patients, staff, and patient records absent express consent did not violate state law. View "W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res. v. E.H." on Justia Law

This institutional reform litigation began in 1981 when a group of patients filed a mandamus action seeking judicial intervention for deplorable conditions in West Virginia’s mental institutions. In these consolidated appeals, Petitioner, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Behavioral Health and Health Facilities (“the DHHR”), sought relief from two 2014 orders of the circuit court. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in refusing to certify its prior rulings on appeal as partial final judgments; (2) did not exceed its authority under the separation of powers doctrine and West Virginia precedent by compelling the DHHR to comply with an agreed order entered in 2009 through the immediate implementation of a pay raise restructuring plan at two state mental health hospitals; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by compelling the DHHR to develop a plan that included the means to increase salaries of existing direct care employees, as required by the 2009 agreed order. View "W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res. v. E.H." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually on and behalf of the Estate of Sharon Hanna (the decedent), brought an action against HCR ManorCare, LLC and other entities and individuals engaged in the operation of nursing homes and assisted living facilities (collectively, ManorCare) alleging that the decedent died as a result of substandard care she received at Heartland of Charleston, a ManorCare nursing home. This appeal concerned Plaintiff’s request for production seeking “Center Visit Summaries,” which concerned the treatment of patients at Heartland during the decedent’s residency, and “Briefing Packets,” which consisted of reports and meeting minutes received by the board of directors of each ManorCare corporate entity relating to the decedent’s residency at Heartland. The circuit court directed ManorCare to produce the documents requested. Defendants asked the Supreme Court for relief in prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the circuit court’s orders. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief as moulded, holding (1) ManorCare’s requested relief concerning the Center Visit Summaries was without merit; but (2) the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the production of the board of director Briefing Packets, as the court should have conducted an in camera proceeding to make an independent determination as to whether the Briefing Packets were excluded from discovery pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. View "State ex rel. HCR Manorcare, LLC v. Hon. Stucky" on Justia Law

Twenty-nine individual Respondents filed eight separate civil actions alleging that Petitioners - three pharmacies and a physician - and other medical providers negligently prescribed and dispensed controlled substances causing Respondents to become addicted to and abuse the controlled substances. Petitioners moved for summary judgment asserting that Respondents’ claims were barred as a matter of law on the basis of Respondents’ admissions of their own criminal activity associated with the prescription and dispensation of controlled substances by Petitioners. Specifically, Petitioners maintained that Respondents’ actions were barred by the “wrongful conduct” rule and/or the doctrine of in pari delicto. The circuit court concluded that the actions were not barred but certified questions regarding the issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that any wrongdoing on the part of Respondents must be assessed under the Court’s precepts of comparative negligence and does not per se operate as a complete bar to Respondents’ causes of action. View "Tug Valley Pharmacy, LLC v. All Plaintiffs Below" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with first degree murder and found mentally incompetent to stand trial. Petitioner subsequently requested a bench trial to give him the opportunity to establish defenses to the charged offense. At the conclusion of a hearing held pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-6, the trial court ruled that the evidence adduced, were it to go to trial, could result in a verdict of second degree murder. The court determined that it retained jurisdiction over Petitioner for forty years based on the maximum sentence specified for a conviction of second degree murder and remanded him to the custody of William R. Sharpe Hospital for the duration of that period of time. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court, holding (1) Petitioner was not unconstitutionally denied his right to a jury trial because the right to a jury trial does not attach to a hearing requested pursuant to section 27-6A-6; and (2) the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient for the trial court to rule that the State had demonstrated Petitioner committed second degree murder for commitment purposes. View "State v. Gum" on Justia Law

Dorothy Douglas died from severe dehydration not long after leaving Heartland Nursing Home, where she stayed for nineteen days. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Douglas’s estate, brought claims of negligence, violations of the West Virginia Nursing Home Act (NHA), and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants, several corporate entities related to Heartland. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that the NHA was not governed by the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), and due to a lack of evidence that the pre-suit requirements of the MPLA were met, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $1.5 million award is vacated; (2) the circuit court erred in recognizing a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a nursing home, and therefore, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $5 million award is vacated; and (3) the punitive damages award is reduced proportionate to the reduction in compensatory damages. Remanded. View "Manor Care Inc. v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an action individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated against Respondents, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) and CAMC Health Education and Research Institute, asserting causes of action for breach of duty of confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and negligence for placing Plaintiffs’ personal and medical information on a specific CAMC electronic database and website that was accessible to the public. The circuit court denied class certification, finding that Plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for class certification and that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioners lacked standing and abused its discretion in ruling that Petitioners failed to meet the requirements for class certification. Remanded. View "Tabata v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Hospital sought full tax refunds in relation to Hospital's attempt to reclassify certain services from either "inpatient" or "outpatient" hospital services to "physicians' services" for purposes of the West Virginia Health Care Provider Tax Act. The Office of Tax Appeals denied Hospital's request, and the circuit court affirmed. In seeking to reclassify items of overhead as "physicians' services," Hospital focused on its use of certain billing codes that were required by federal law. The Tax Commission argued that Hospital's reliance on these billing codes to identify what qualifies as "physicians' services" under the Act was misplaced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the overhead items at issue did not qualify as "physicians' services" under the Act. View "Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Lorensen" on Justia Law

Nancy Belcher was the designated health care surrogate of decedent Beulah Wyatt. Belcher signed an arbitration agreement that was presented to her when she sought to admit Wyatt to the McDowell Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (McDowell Nursing). Wyatt died after living ten months in the nursing home. Lelia Baker subsequently filed a wrongful death suit against McDowell Nursing alleging that its negligent care of Wyatt caused and/or contributed to her death. McDowell Nursing filed a motion to dismiss and to enforce the arbitration agreement. The circuit court denied the motion and concluded that the agreement was unenforceable because Belcher did not have the authority to waive Wyatt's right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court denied McDowell Nursing's subsequent request for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its order, holding that Belcher, as a health care surrogate, did not have the authority to enter the arbitration agreement because it was not a health care decision and was not required for Wyatt's receipt of nursing home services from McDowell Nursing. View "State ex rel. AMFM, LLC v. Circuit Court (King)" on Justia Law

In the instant case, the Supreme Court was once again asked to consider whether medical protective orders are valid and enforceable to limit the dissemination and retention of medical records obtained through discovery. Such orders had been entered in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs seeking compensation for the injuries they sustained in motor vehicle accidents caused by other motorists. Repeatedly, the insurers from whom such compensation had been sought requested the West Virginia Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, and a federal district court to invalidate these protective orders as burdensome, restrictive, and/or unconstitutional. Each time the reviewing Court examined these medical protective orders, it upheld the order as substantively valid and enforceable as a proper exercise of the issuing court's supervisory authority over discovery. In the instant case, the Court again declined insurance companies' invitation to invalidate the subject medical protective orders, finding that the insurance companies' arguments were insufficient to overturn precedent. View "State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law