CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that summary judgment was rightfully awarded in a lower court lawsuit involving an urgent care and an accounting firm.
"We find that the circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment to the Boal Respondents or by failing to alter or amend the judgment," Justice Haley Bunn wrote in the Nov. 7 Supreme Court opinion. "Further, the circuit court did not err in denying the Chafin Petitioners’ motion for relief from judgment or order. For the foregoing reasons, the December 9, 2021 order of the circuit court is affirmed."
Christopher Chafin and Cheat Lake Urgent Care petitioned the court to appeal an earlier ruling from Monongalia Circuit Court in 2021 wherein the court denied a Rule 59(e) motion and Rule 60(b) motion.
The motions sought to alter or amend the court's July 30, 2021, order that granted partial summary judgment in favor of the respondents—Brian R. Boal and Boal & Associates P.C.
The underlying case involved claims of accounting malpractice.
The petitioners made three key arguments in their appeal. First, they claim that the court erred in striking their standard of care expert witness, Charles J. Russo.
They then argued that the court wrongly granted summary judgment to the respondents, asserting that expert testimony on the standard of care was not required for all their claims.
Lastly, they argued that the court continuously abused its discretion and showed prejudice toward them.
The respondents provided accounting and tax services to Cheat Lake Urgent Care.
When discrepancies allegedly arose, including embezzlement accusations against another individual associated with Cheat Lake Urgent Care, Chafin initiated legal proceedings in 2016, leading to an amended complaint with various claims against the respondents.
The dispute intensified during discovery, with the respondents arguing that the petitioners failed to adequately disclose their expert witness's opinions.
The court set deadlines for expert disclosures, but the petitioners faced challenges in meeting them, citing resource constraints and delays in receiving necessary documents.
The respondents filed a motion to strike the expert witness's report, leading to the court's decision to exclude Russo from testifying at trial.
Subsequently, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the petitioner's failure to disclose expert opinions left them unable to prove the standard of care owed by the respondents. The court granted summary judgment, emphasizing the need for expert testimony on the professional duties of accountants in the face of claims involving accounting malpractice.
The petitioners then filed motions seeking to alter or amend the judgment and relief from the order striking their expert witness. The court denied these motions on Dec. 9, 2021, prompting the appeal.
The Dec. 9, 2021, order of the circuit court is affirmed, upholding the summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The court maintains that there was no error in the original judgment or in denying the petitioners' subsequent motions for relief and alteration.
The attorneys for the parties declined to publicly comment on the opinion.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 22-0010
