Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal of the circuit court's orders, the latter of which denied Appellants' motion for summary judgment, in this action alleging that Petitioners acted negligently in their handling of an incident where S.D. was inappropriately touched by a fellow student in the hallway of a high school, holding that the orders appealed from did not present an appealable ruling.In their notice of appeal, Petitioners asserted that the individual defendants were entitled to dismissal pursuant to W. Va. Code 29-12A-5(b)(2) because the order at issue found that the individual defendants did not act maliciously, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Petitioners further contend that the board of education was immune from liability pursuant to W. Va. Code 29-12A-5(a)(4). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the orders presented in this appeal were interlocutory, did not fall within the collateral order doctrine, and did not otherwise present an appealable ruling. View "Kanawha County Board of Education v. S.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court entering judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC in this lawsuit brought by Petitioner seeking damages for injuries he sustained while visiting a patient at Cornerstone, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the peer review privilege protected Cornerstone's incident report from discovery.At issue was a circuit court order protecting from discovery an incident report in which an employee of Cornerstone described the condition of the patient's room following Petitioner's injury based on the peer review privilege set forth in W. Va. Code 30-3C-1 to -5. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ruling that the peer review privilege protected the incident report from discovery because the employee prepared the report exclusively for its own use in its internal quality assurance and facility maintenance review process; and (2) did not err in entering judgment on the jury's verdict because Petitioner failed to rebut Cornerstone's assertion of the peer review privilege. View "Toler v. Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's complaint seeking declaratory relief regarding the ownership of real property located in Martinsburg, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaint.Petitioner brought this complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to ownership of the disputed real property and alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, tort of outrage, conversion, and tort damages. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, Petitioner was not entitled to ownership of the real property or any of its household belongings. View "Gabbert v. Richard T. Coyne Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court denying motions to dismiss this tort action brought against correction officers Bryon Whetzel and Isaiah Blancarte and West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOC), holding that the circuit court erred in denying DOC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's negligent training and supervision claim.Plaintiff asserted three claims against the officers, including failure to protect and deliberate indifference, and two claims against the DOC - failure to train and adequately supervise and vicarious liability for the violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment. In denying Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff alleged sufficient particularized facts to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying the officers' motions to dismiss; (2) did not err in denying DOC's motion to dismiss the vicarious liability count; but (3) erred in denying DOC's motion to dismiss the negligent training and supervision count because the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to deprive DOC of the immunity from suit that otherwise attaches to its discretionary functions of training and supervising employees. View "W. Va. Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Robbins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) that would effectively dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed against it by Mary Jane McComas, administratrix of the estate of Deanna McDonald, holding that DCR failed to establish that it was entitled to the writ.McComas, as administratrix of McDonald's estate, sued DCR alleging state law and common law claims and causes of action, including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. DCR filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint asserted claims sounding in medical professional liability under the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) that could not be brought against DCR. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, after which DCR filed its writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the MPLA does not apply to DCR, and therefore, the circuit court did not commit clear error as a matter of law in declining to dismiss the amended complaint. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Honorable Ferguson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court concluding that the Raleigh County Housing Authority (RCHA) was entitled to qualified immunity in the underlying wrongful death and negligence action, holding that RCHA was a "political subdivision" as defined in the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, W. Va. Code 29-12A-1 to 18.Edward S. And Rachel K. lived in a rental house with their three children with assistance from the RCHA. Two of the children died and Edward and a third child were seriously injured when the house caught fire. Edward sued RCHA alleging two counts of wrongful death and one count of negligence. The circuit court granted summary judgment for RCHA, concluding that RCHA was not a political subdivision as defined by the Tort Claims Act and that RCHA was qualifiedly immune. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that RCHA was a political subdivision under the Tort Claims Act. View "Edward S. v. Raleigh County Housing Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court concluding that Speedyway LLC was partially at fault for the death of Kevin Jarrett, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Speedway had a legal duty in this case.While driving her vehicle after leaving work at Speedway and running a personal errand, Brandy Liggett collided with Jarrett's motorcycle, killing him. Respondent, as the executrix of Jarrett's estate, brought this action alleging that Speedyway was negligent in Jarrett's death because at the time of the accident and during her shift at Speedway, Liggett was under the influence of illegally obtained prescription drugs. The circuit court found Speedyway to be thirty percent at fault in Jarrett's death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that Speedway engaged in affirmative conduct that created an unreasonable risk of harm to Jarrett and the rest of the motoring public. View "Speedway LLC v. Jarrett" on Justia Law

In a putative class action involving a water main break the Supreme Court denied a requested writ of prohibition sought by West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) to preclude enforcement of the circuit court's order certifying an "issues" class pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4), holding that WVAWC failed to demonstrate that the circuit court's class certification was clearly erroneous.The water break in this case and its ensuing repair resulted in water service interruptions that caused outages, inadequate water pressure, and boil water advisories affecting 25,000 WVAWC customers. Respondents filed this putative class complaint on behalf of the putative class asserting breach of contract and other claims. The circuit court certified the "issues" class to determine "the overarching common issues" as to WVAWC's liability, resulting in WVAWC bringing this action. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ of prohibition, holding that WVAWC failed to demonstrate that the circuit court's class certification was clearly erroneous. View "State ex rel. West Virginia-American Water Co. v. Honorable Webster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Board of Review (BOR) affirming the finding of the Office of Judges (OOJ) that Respondent's claim for occupational pneumoconiosis benefits against Petitioner was timely, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.The claims representative for Petitioner's worker's compensation insurance carrier found that Respondent's claim for benefits was filed outside of the pertinent three-year statute of limitations and therefore denied it. The OOJ reversed, ruling that Respondent was not time-barred from filing his claim. Thereafter, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that Respondent had a ten-percent impairment. The BOR affirmed on the timeliness issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR did not clearly err in finding that Respondent filed his occupational pneumoconiosis claim within the three-year limitations period. View "Argus Energy, LLC v. Marenko" on Justia Law

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