CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court exceeded its powers when it granted a motion to compel discovery.
Logan Circuit Court granted a motion to compel discovery, ordering Health Care Alliance Inc. and HCFS Health Care Financial Services to provide the names and addresses of all individuals with a West Virginia billing address who received communications from Health Care Financial Services between June 2016 and the time Kelsey Starr filed her complaint and account information regarding the individuals who received these particular communications.
"Further, Petitioner was ordered to provide this information 'in searchable format,'" the June 15 Supreme Court opinion states. "The circuit court further ordered that such responses 'shall not be disclosed by [Respondent Starr], or [Respondent Starr’s] counsel, outside the scope of this litigation, and [Respondent Starr] shall return or destroy the protected health information at the end of the litigation or proceeding.'”
Justice Tim Armstead authored the majority opinion. Justice John Hutchison concurred and authored a separate opinion.
"After careful review of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the appendix record, and the applicable law, we find that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers by granting the motion to compel," Armstead wrote. "We therefore grant the writ of prohibition, as moulded, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings."
Starr filed a complaint against HCA and HCFS in Logan Circuit Court on June 8, 2020, alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act after she was sent a collection letter in 2019. Starr filed a motion to compel and the circuit court granted the motion on Dec. 4, 2020. The petitioners then filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court.
Armstead wrote that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers in compelling HCFS to disclose at this pre-certification stage the information sought.
"However, Petitioner HCFS should be directed to supplement its discovery responses to provide the number of West Virginia residents to whom it sent written communications during the relevant period, regardless of the medical facility at which they received treatment," Armstead wrote. "Finally, the circuit court did not exceed its authority in directing Petitioner HCFS to supplement its response to Interrogatory 13 and the writ granted herein shall not prohibit enforcement of the circuit court’s order in relation to Interrogatory No. 13."
In his concurring opinion, Hutchison wrote that he agreed with the majority's opinion, but wanted to write separately to assure the circuit judge in the case that his decision was not wrong, just likely premature.
Hutchison wrote that at this early stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff failed to show how the personal, medically related information sought is relevant to the circuit court’s assessment of whether to certify a class action.
"Given the manner in which the plaintiff has framed her case, she has failed to show an entitlement to the information," Hutchison wrote. "Hence, although it was a close call, it was an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to have required its production. Whether that information becomes discoverable down the road remains to be seen."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-1029
