CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a case should have been dismissed while it was before the lower court because the claims in the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Justice Tim Armstead authored the majority opinion.
Justice Bill Wooton recused himself from the case, and Ohio Circuit Judge Michael J. Olejasz sat in his place for the case.
"After careful review of the record before us, the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we find that the circuit court erred by failing to dismiss the Shrewsburys’ claims against Petitioners for lack of subject matter jurisdiction," the May 17 opinion states. "Accordingly, we grant the writ of prohibition and vacate the circuit court’s order denying Petitioners’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We further remand this case to the circuit court and direct it to enter an order dismissing Respondents’ civil action."
The case involved the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) and Greg Shrewsbury and Phillis Shrewsbury filed the lawsuit alleging that the Hope Clinic prescribed controlled substances solely for monetary purposes.
Greg Shrewsbury was in a car accident in 2011 and he was prescribed pain medication, which he claims he became addicted to. When he and his wife filed their lawsuit against the clinic, they did not timely file a notice of claim. The circuit court, however, concluded during a hearing on several motions to dismiss that despite the plaintiffs not sending out a notice of claim, they had still complied with MPLA requirements and the court denied several motions to dismiss.
"The Shrewsburys filed multiple notices of claims, but all of their notices were filed after they filed their complaint," Armstead wrote. "In fact, the First Notice of Claim was filed over two months after the Shrewsburys filed their Complaint. In addition to being filed after the Complaint, some of the notices contained deficiencies and inaccuracies."
Armstead wrote that the Shrewsburys failed to comply with the screening certificate of merit requirements of the MPLA. He wrote that post-suit notice was insufficient to cure the jurisdiction deficiency created by their failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements.
The court found that the circuit court erred by failing to dismiss the claims against all petitioners because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed in this case due to the respondents’ failure to comply with the MPLA’s pre-suit requirements.
"Accordingly, we grant the requested writ of prohibition and vacate the circuit court’s order denying Petitioners’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction," Armstead wrote. "We further remand this case to the circuit court and direct the circuit court to enter an order dismissing the Shrewsburys’ claims."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-0410