CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals sided with a Monongalia Circuit Court judge in a case alleging the court exceeded its authority.
Dr. Christopher Chafin and Cheat Lake Urgent Care, by the state, filed the petition for writ of prohibition against Monongalia Circuit Court, Circuit Judge Susan Tucker, David Anderson, Brian Boal, Boal & Associates, Gillen Enterprises, Affordable Contractors and Built It attempting to stop the court from enforcing an order striking an expert and his testimony from a trial.
"This Court has considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the appendix record. Upon consideration of the standard of review and the applicable law, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error," the Supreme Court found. "For these reasons, a memorandum decision denying the request for extraordinary relief is appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure."
Chafin filed a lawsuit against Anderson in 2016 alleging that Anderson had embezzled funds from Cheat Lake Urgent Care and Chafin later amended the complaint to include Boal and his firm in the complaint, as Boal provided accounting services for the medical center and failed to discover that Anderson was embezzling funds.
In August, a hearing was held in the case after Boal filed a motion to strike the witness, Charles Russo, the month before. The circuit court granted the motion and the petitioners filed an instant petition for a writ of prohibition.
The petitioners argued that the circuit court was operating under “some vague notion that the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure require Plaintiff to provide a detailed expert report.”
However, the March 17 memorandum decision states, the motion to strike included two arguments.
"Without an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law that support and form the basis of the circuit court’s decision, this Court cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review," the Supreme Court said in their decision.
The court said it would not speculate as to the reason or reasons the court granted the motion, but it was clear that there were several arguments to advance that decision that the court relied upon.
The court denied the requested writ of prohibition.
W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-0685