Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed the underlying action against American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. (collectively, AEP) seeking damages for injuries that they incurred as a result of their exposure to coal combustion waste from the Gavin Landfill in Gallipolis, Ohio. AEP, which owns and/or operates the landfill, filed a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens. The circuit court refused AEP’s motion to dismiss, concluding, inter alia, that West Virginia is not such an inconvenient forum so as to require trial of the case elsewhere. AEP requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court adequately considered and applied the statutory forum non conveniens factors in refusing AEP’s motion to dismiss on such grounds. View "State ex rel. Am. Elec. Power v. Hon. Nibert" on Justia Law

Stephanie Mills had a thyroidectomy, performed by Dr. Ghaphery at Wheeling Hospital. Mills’s nerves surrounding her thyroid gland were severed during the thyroidectomy, resulting in bilateral vocal cord paralysis. Mills filed suit against Dr. Ghaphery, A.D. Ghaphery Professional Association, and Wheeling Hospital, Inc. (collectively, Wheeling Hospital), alleging medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and negligent credentialing. Mills sought discovery of certain documents from Wheeling Hospital. When the Hospital failed to respond to the discovery requests, Mills filed a motion to compel. The circuit court ordered the majority of the disputed documents to be disclosed. Wheeling Hospital sought a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the circuit court’s order, asserting that the disputed documents were protected by the statutory peer review privilege. The Supreme Court granted as moulded the requested writ, holding (1) certain of the challenged documents, including those comprising Dr. Ghaphery’s request to renew his staff privilege, are specifically protected by the peer review privilege; and (2) the circuit court did not conduct a thorough in camera review of the remaining challenged documents, and Wheeling Hospital did not provide a sufficiently detailed privilege log to permit the circuit court to determine whether such documents are protected by the peer review privilege. View "State ex rel. Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Hon. Wilson" on Justia Law