Quantcast

Intermediate court says alternative school not responsible for student's improper dismount from bunk bed

WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Intermediate court says alternative school not responsible for student's improper dismount from bunk bed

State Supreme Court
Generalcourt4

shutterstock.com

CHARLESTON — The state Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that a man who was injured at the West Virginia Mountaineer Challenge Academy was at fault for his injuries — not the school.

When the incident occurred, Jason Ryan Moorhead was 16 years old and a student at the alternative school. He was injured when he exited his bunk bed improperly and he argued the school didn't properly enforce its policy for exiting bunks, according to the June 15 opinion authored by Judge Charles Lorensen.

"Mr. Moorhead argues that there are factual disputes as to whether MCA acted in a fraudulent, malicious, or an otherwise oppressive way when it required Mr. Moorhead to continue to participate in the physical activities required by candidate cadets and that the issue should be remanded for a jury determination," Lorensen wrote. "MCA relied on the medical advice of Preston Memorial treatment providers and had no reason to believe that Mr. Moorhead was physically unable to participate in MCA activities. Mr. Moorhead did not present any evidence that MCA disregarded the treatment recommendations from the several different providers that evaluated Mr. Moorhead, nor did he present any evidence that MCA refused or delayed having him evaluated at all."

Therefore, Lorensen wrote, the circuit court did not err when it did not send this issue to a jury.

"Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Circuit Court of Preston County’s July 28, 2022, order granting MCA’s motion for summary judgment," Lorensen wrote.

MCA is a voluntary 22-week, quasi-military training and mentorship residential program for high-school-age students who are at risk of not succeeding in a traditional school environment.

Moorhead submitted his application in 2015 and he was accepted into the alternative school. He went to orientation in July 2015 and during orientation, he, along with other cadets,  was instructed on the approved method of dismounting the top bunk when they were taken to the barracks in which they would be residing before they spent their first night at MCA.

"This method consisted of candidates sitting upright, turning so that they were face down on the bed, and then sliding down off the bunk on their stomachs," the opinion states. "Each morning at MCA, the cadet candidates are awakened by the playing of Reveille. Cadet candidates then dismount their bunks and stand at attention in preparation for the day."

On the morning of July 17, 2015, Moorhead awoke and dismounted his bunk bed in an unapproved manner. Upon landing, he felt a pinch in his right knee but did not inform anyone that he felt that he had been injured.

The next day, Moorhead informed one of the cadres that he had injured his knee and he was taken to see an on-site nurse employed by Preston Memorial Hospital and was given a pair of crutches.

Three days later he was evaluated by a nurse practitioner who placed him on lower body restricted duty, prohibiting him from engaging in physical training or organized activities until he could be re-evaluated in three days.

On July 22, 2015, at the close of the acclimation period, the decision was made to discharge Moorhead from MCA.

Moorhead was able to graduate with his high school diploma in 2017 and he commenced litigation on July 16, 2018. 

In the litigation, Moorhead argued that the respondents were liable because they were required to provide him with a safe and secure learning environment and that MCA failed to enforce its mandatory protocol regulating how candidates were to exit from the top bunk.

On Dec. 1, 2021, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that MCA is entitled to qualified immunity. In its order of July 28, 2022, the circuit court granted summary judgment. Moorhead then appealed to the intermediate court.

The intermediate court agreed with the lower court.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News