Elaine Neidig v. Valley Health System
Court
West Virginia Supreme Court
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Importance
55%
Case Summary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2025 Term FILED _____________________ June 10, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK No. 24-27 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS _____________________ OF WEST VIRGINIA ELAINE NEIDIG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiff Below, Petitioner, v. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant Below, Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Certified Question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The Honorable James Andrew Wynn, United States Circuit Judge Civil Action No. 22-2227 CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED _________________________________________________________ Submitted: February 18, 2025 Filed: June 10, 2025 Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Charles F. Printz, Esq. Powell & Majestro PLLC J. Tyler Mayhew, Esq. Charleston, West Virginia Bowles Rice LLP and Charleston, West Virginia Steven G. Skinner, Esq. Counsel for Respondent Skinner Law Firm Charles Town, West Virginia Counsel for Petitioner CHIEF JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE WALKER concurs and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. JUSTICE ARMSTEAD dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. JUSTICE TRUMP, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case. JUDGE PERRI JO DECHRISTOPHER sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “A de novo standard is applied by this Court in addressing the legal issues presented by a certified question from a federal district or appellate court.” Syl. Pt. 1, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W. Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998). 2. “Where the issue on an appeal . . . is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). 3. “The Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1 to -12, applies only when two conditions are satisfied, that is, when a plaintiff (1) sues a ‘health care provider’ or ‘health care facility’ for (2) ‘medical professional liability’ as those terms are defined under the Act. These are separate and distinct conditions. If either of these two conditions is lacking, the Act does not apply.” Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. W. Va. Div. of Corr. & Rehab. v. Ferguson, 248 W. Va. 471, 889 S.E.2d 44 (2023). 4. “The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syl. Pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). i 5. “‘Statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed.’ Syllabus Point 1, Kellar v. James, 63 W. Va. 139, 59 S.E. 939 (1907)” Syl. Pt. 3, Phillips v. Larry’s Drive-In Pharm. Inc., 220 W. Va. 484, 647 S.E.2d 920 (2007). 6. The Medical Professional Liability Act does not apply to a suit against a health care provider or health care facility when the plaintiff claims only economic damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death. ii WOOTON, Chief Justice: Pursuant to West Virginia Code section 51-1A-6(a)(1) (2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) certified the following question to this Court in its January 9, 2024, order: “Whether a plaintiff’s claims can fall under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act if the plaintiff disclaims any form of physical or emotional injury.” Neidig v. Valley Health Sys., 90 F.4th 300, 302 (4th Cir. 2024). To align with the language of the Act, pursuant to West Virginia Code section 51-1A-4 (2016) we reformulate the certified question as follows: Does the Medical Professional Liability Act apply to a suit against a health care provider or health care facility when the plain
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
January 2025 Term FILED
_____________________ June 10, 2025
released at 3:00 p.m.
C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
No. 24-27 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
_____________________ OF WEST VIRGINIA
ELAINE NEIDIG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner,
v.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant Below, Respondent.
___________________________________________________________
Certified Question from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The Honorable James Andrew Wynn, United States Circuit Judge
Civil Action No. 22-2227
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED
_________________________________________________________
Submitted: February 18, 2025
Filed: June 10, 2025
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Charles F. Printz, Esq. Powell & Majestro PLLC J. Tyler Mayhew, Esq. Charleston, West Virginia Bowles Rice LLP and Charleston, West Virginia Steven G. Skinner, Esq. Counsel for Respondent Skinner Law Firm Charles Town, West Virginia Counsel for Petitioner CHIEF JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE WALKER concurs and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.
JUSTICE ARMSTEAD dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.
JUSTICE TRUMP, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case.
JUDGE PERRI JO DECHRISTOPHER sitting by temporary assignment. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “A de novo standard is applied by this Court in addressing the legal
issues presented by a certified question from a federal district or appellate court.” Syl. Pt.
1, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W. Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998).
2. “Where the issue on an appeal . . . is clearly a question of law or
involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syl. Pt. 1,
in part, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).
3. “The Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1 to
-12, applies only when two conditions are satisfied, that is, when a plaintiff (1) sues a
‘health care provider’ or ‘health care facility’ for (2) ‘medical professional liability’ as
those terms are defined under the Act. These are separate and distinct conditions. If either
of these two conditions is lacking, the Act does not apply.” Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. W. Va.
Div. of Corr. & Rehab. v. Ferguson, 248 W. Va. 471, 889 S.E.2d 44 (2023).
4. “The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give
effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syl. Pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r,
159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).
i
5. “‘Statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed.’
Syllabus Point 1, Kellar v. James, 63 W. Va. 139, 59 S.E. 939 (1907)” Syl. Pt. 3, Phillips
v. Larry’s Drive-In Pharm. Inc., 220 W. Va. 484, 647 S.E.2d 920 (2007).
6. The Medical Professional Liability Act does not apply to a suit against
a health care provider or health care facility when the plaintiff claims only economic
damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death.
ii
WOOTON, Chief Justice:
Pursuant to West Virginia Code section 51-1A-6(a)(1) (2016), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) certified the following
question to this Court in its January 9, 2024, order: “Whether a plaintiff’s claims can fall
under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act if the plaintiff disclaims any
form of physical or emotional injury.” Neidig v. Valley Health Sys., 90 F.4th 300, 302 (4th
Cir. 2024). To align with the language of the Act, pursuant to West Virginia Code section
51-1A-4 (2016) we reformulate the certified question as follows: Does the Medical
Professional Liability Act apply to a suit against a health care provider or health care
facility when the plain
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools