CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals granted a writ of prohibition in a case, citing clear legal error by the lower court.
Chief Justice Evan Jenkins authored the majority opinion, saying that the court found the circuit court made an effort when it did not afford the Grant County Commission immunity from an intentional tort claim,
"Having considered the briefs submitted to the Court, the appendix record, the parties’ oral arguments, and the applicable legal authority, we find that the Commission is not the employer of Ms. Linville and therefore is an improper defendant in this case," the majority opinion stated. "In denying the motion to dismiss, the circuit court committed clear legal error. Therefore, we grant the requested writ of prohibition. We further find that the circuit court erred by not affording the Commission immunity from Ms. Linville’s intentional tort claim, and so we reverse the circuit court’s order."
Justice Beth Walker concurred in part and dissented in part and authored a separate opinion. Justice Bill Wooton concurred with the majority opinion and filed a concurring opinion.
The Grant County Commission appealed a lower court decision, stating that the circuit court erred when it failed to give the commission immunity.
"In this proceeding, the Commission presents two separate questions for this Court to decide: one is presented as a petition for writ of prohibition and the other is presented as an appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine," Jenkins wrote. "First, the Commission requests that this Court prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order denying the Commission’s motion to dismiss because 'the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers and erred as a matter of law...by failing to find that the Commission was not the employer of Ms. Linville under the Whistle-Blower Law and the Human Rights Act, or [that the Commission was not] a health care entity under the Patient Safety Act.'"
Kimberly Linville was hired by Grant Memorial Hospital in 1997 and became the chief nursing officer in 2011. Robert "Bob" Milvet was hired as the hospital's new CEO in 2018.
Linville frequently expressed concerns regarding Milvet's behavior within the hospital, alleging his behavior was harassing and inappropriate and created a hostile work environment. Milvet terminated her employment after expressing concerns. She filed her lawsuit on April 27, 2020, naming the commission as one of the defendants.
The commission sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it wasn't liable under the Whistle-Blower Law or Human Rights Act because it was not her employer, but the circuit court denied the motion.
Jenkins wrote that the commission was not a proper defendant to the statutory claims asserted by Linville.
In her separate opinion, Walker wrote that while the majority correctly found that the commission was immune, she disagreed with the majority overlooking significant legal issues.
"I would not grant the Commission extraordinary relief from the circuit court’s order denying its Rule 12(b)(6) motion on Ms. Linville’s statutory causes of action under the Whistle-Blower Law, Human Rights Act, and Patient Safety Act," Walker wrote. "This Court should not intervene to disturb the circuit court’s ruling and grant extraordinary relief merely because it doubts that Ms. Linville will ultimately prevail against the Commission, because this is neither the purpose nor function of Rule 12(b)(6). But I concur with the majority’s opinion insofar as it concludes that the Commission is statutorily immune from suit for Ms. Linville’s intentional tort claim."
In his concurring opinion, Wooton wanted to write separately to address the concurrence/dissent's insistence that the majority has "improvidently failed to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to Ms. Linville and in so doing disposes of otherwise valid claims."
"Without question, Ms. Linville’s claims of retaliation under the whistleblower law, Human Rights Act and Patient Safety Act are expressly pled as intentional, malicious acts," Wooton wrote. "Ms. Linville’s complaint expressly alleges that the Commission’s actions under her whistleblower and Patient Safety Act claims were 'discriminatory and/or retaliatory' and with respect to her Human Rights Act claim that its actions were 'retaliatory' and were 'carried out with actual malice toward [Ms. Linville].'"
Wooton wrote that assuming the majority graciously attempted to temporarily salvage Linville’s claims against the commission, the concurrence/dissent failed to explain why that would not ultimately be an exercise in futility due to the commission’s immunity.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-0600
