State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. The Honorable Cindy S. Scott, Judge of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted a writ of prohibition as moulded in favor of West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. The court held that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over corporate-negligence claims added in an amended complaint because the plaintiffs had not satisfied the Medical Professional Liability Act’s pre-suit notice requirements. It also held that the corporate-negligence claims asserted in the original complaint were governed by the Act.

Holdings

1. The MPLA's pre-suit notice-of-claim and screening-certificate requirements are jurisdictional; failure to comply deprives a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction over the medical professional liability claims.
2. The claims for failure to purchase and utilize air filters, failure to document, spoliation of evidence, and failure to report a sentinel event are governed by the MPLA because, as pleaded, they are anchor or ancillary claims arising in the context of rendering health care services.
3. The circuit court clearly erred by denying WVUH's petition for declaratory judgment because the original corporate-negligence claims for negligent hiring, staffing, training, supervision, protocols, protection, and correction fall within the MPLA.
4. The court did not reach whether the four added claims independently failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted because the lack of subject matter jurisdiction resolved the motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the four corporate-negligence claims added in the amended complaint because Respondents failed to comply with the MPLA's pre-suit notice and screening-certificate requirements.
2. Whether the MPLA applies to the additional corporate-negligence claims because they arose from, or were related to, the provision of health care.
3. Whether the circuit court clearly erred by denying WVUH's petition for declaratory judgment concerning application of the MPLA to the corporate-negligence claims in the original complaint.
4. Whether the amended complaint also failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.

Disposition

writ_granted