Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court converted this interlocutory appeal to a petition for a writ of prohibition in this negligence action and granted extraordinary relief, holding that a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue in this case.Plaintiff brought this case against West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) for the alleged negligence of two emergency room physicians, both of whom were employees of the West Virginia University Board of Governors, on a theory of ostensible agency. WVUH filed a motion to dismiss that was converted into a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable on a theory of ostensible agency under W. Va. Code 55-7B-9(g), which insulates non-employer healthcare providers from ostensible agency liability if the agent maintains a requisite amount of insurance coverage for the injury. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the two physicians did not meet the coverage requirements of the statute so as to alleviate WVUH of ostensible agency liability. The Supreme Court granted extraordinary relief, holding that the circuit court's reading of section 55-7B-9(g) as applied was clear error because it failed to account for W. Va. Code 55-7H-1 to -6, which cannot be reconciled with the circuit court's reading of section 55-7B-9(g). View "State ex rel. W. Va. University Hospitals, Inc. v. Honorable Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court refusing to adjudicate Father as an abusive and neglectful parent and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Father did not abandon Child.Father was identified as the father of Child, who was removed from the home of his mother because of drug use and other conditions, and the pending abuse and neglect petition was amended to add him as an alleged neglectful parent. The circuit court declined to make a finding of abandonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence showed that Father demonstrated a settled purpose to forgo his responsibilities and duties to Child and thus abandoned him. View "In re C.M.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the rules of the West Virginia Health Care Authority (WVHCA) denying War Memorial Hospital, Inc.'s (Hospital) certificate of need exemption application that would have allowed Hospital to acquire and utilize a fixed magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) scanner at its medical office building, holding that the circuit court erred.The WVHCA denied the Hospital's exemption application on the grounds that the MRI device would not be used in the Hospital's facility but, rather, that the Hospital intended to place the MRI device in a building in another country that was owned by the Hospital's parent corporation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there is no location-specific requirement in W. Va. Code 16-2D-11(c)(27) that the MRI the Hospital sought to acquire be utilized at its "primary hospital location." View "War Memorial Hospital v. W. Va. Health Care Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's complaint stemming from the suspension of his hospital clinical privileges and medical staff membership under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioner, a self-employed physician, held clinical privileges and medical staff membership with Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital Association and Thomas Health System, Inc. (collectively, Thomas Hospital) until they were suspended in 2019. Petitioner brought this action raising claims related to the suspension. The suspension, however, occurred before Thomas Hospital's Chapter 11 bankruptcy confirmation order and reorganization plan. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint. View "Katrib v. Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Petitioners' petition for declaratory relief, in which they sought reformation of a 2009 deed due to mutual mistake, and its finding that Respondents were bona fide purchasers of the property at issue who lacked notice that there was a mistake in the deed, holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioners filed a complaint for declaratory and other relief alleging that, due to a mutual mistake, a 2009 deed transferring Petitioners' entire property to Respondents' predecessor-in-title contained an error and that Respondents were precluded from claiming ownership of the garage on the property because they were not bona fide purchasers. The trial court found that Respondents were bona fide purchasers and that Petitioners were not entitled to declaratory relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof that Respondents had knowledge of the mistake made in Petitioners' prior deed. View "Oelschlager v. Francis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that the order was insufficient to permit for appellate review.Respondent brought this action against Petitioner alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision. Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied on the grounds that there were genuine issues of material fact to be resolved. Thereafter, Petitioner filed its petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit enforcement of the court's order denying summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that, without a detailed order, this court was unable sufficiently to evaluate whether the lower court committed clear legal error for purposes of granting the requested extraordinary relief. View "State ex rel., ERx, LLC v. Honorable Cramer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Plaintiff for injuries he sustained in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to dismiss.Plaintiff severely injured his left leg while he was employment at a pipeline construction project and received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim on the ground that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the common law tort claims alleged in Plaintiff's complaint fell within the scope of immunity afforded by West Virginia's Workers' Compensation Act, W. Va. Code 23-2-1 et seq. View "Precision Pipeline, LLC v. Weese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that that an insurance policy's "Employer's Liability" exclusion (ELE) was inapplicable to Plaintiff's wrongful death action against Defendant, holding that the circuit court erred.Jeremy Neice was killed in Pennsylvania while working in an underground coal mine owned by Dana Mining Company of Pennsylvania, LLC. The circuit court concluded that Federal Insurance Company owed Dana Mining defense and indemnity pursuant to a liability insurance policy under which Dana Mining was a named assured and that the policy's ELE was inapplicable to the wrongful death action brought by Jenny Neice, the administrator of Jeremy's estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Pennsylvania courts would adhere to the majority rule in their interpretation and application of the ELE at issue, finding that it barred coverage for Dana Mining as to Plaintiff's claims. View "Federal Insurance Co. v. Neice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court permanently enjoining the State from implementing the Hope Scholarship Act, W. Va. Code 18-31-1 to -13, after declaring the Act to be unconstitutional, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion.The Act established the Hope Scholarship Program to create education-savings accounts that may only be used for specific educational purposes. Via statute, the Hope Scholarship's funding was "in addition to all other amounts required" to fund public education. Plaintiffs brought this complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and arguing that the Act was unconstitutional. The circuit court ruled that the Act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Act does not facially violate the "free schools" clause contained in W. Va. Const. art. XII, 1; (2) the Act does not impinge on a child's fundamental right to an education; (3) the Act does not violate W. Va. Const. art. XII, 4-5 or art. X, 5; and (4) the Act does not violate article XII, 2. View "State v. Beaver" on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect matter, the Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to reunify Daughter with Parents and to remove Kinship Parents' party status in the underlying action, holding that Daughter and Parents had a clear legal right to reunification, and the circuit court had a clear legal duty to order that reunification.Upon filing the underlying petition, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) removed Daughter from Father's home and placed her with Kinship Parents. After Parents successfully completed post-adjudicatory improvement periods all parties recommended reunification of the family. The circuit court concluded that the DHHR was required to move for termination of Parents' parental rights under W. Va. Code 49-4-605(a)(1) because Daughter had been in "foster care" for more than fifteen months. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that there was a clear legal right to reunification and a clear legal duty to order that reunification and that there was no other adequate remedy available. View "State ex rel. L.D. v. Honorable Cohee" on Justia Law