Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2001 Term

FILED
November 9, 2001
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

RELEASED
No. 29770
November 9, 2001
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL.
THE CHARLES TOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL,
dba JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, AND
THE MEDICAL STAFF OF
THE CHARLES TOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL,
dba JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Petitioners,
V. THE HONORABLE DAVID H. SANDERS,
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BERKELEY COUNTY,
ANNA MARIE CHAFFINS, AND THOMAS CHAFFINS, JR.,
Respondents.


PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
WRIT GRANTED AS MOULDED


Submitted: September 5, 2001 Filed: November 9, 2001

P. Gregory Haddad, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC Morgantown, West Virginia Ancil G. Ramey, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Petitioners

D. Michael Burke, Esq. Burke, Schultz and Harman Martinsburg, West Virginia Barry J. Nace, Esq. Paulson & Nace Washington, District of Columbia Attorneys for the Respondents

Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Esq.
Wilson, Frame, Benninger & Metheney, PLLC
Morgantown, West Virginia
Attorney for Amicus Curiae,
West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association


JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the Court.


SYLLABUS BY THE COURT


1.

"`"[T]his Court will use prohibition . . . to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal

errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance." Syllabus Point 1, [in part,] Hinkle v. Black, 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979).' Syllabus point 1, in part, State ex rel. DeFrances v. Bedell, 191 W. Va. 513, 446 S.E.2d 906 (1994) [(per curiam)]." Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. Charleston Mail Association v. Ranson, 200 W. Va. 5, 488 S.E.2d 5 (1997).

2.

"Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal

question subject to de novo review." Syllabus point 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Department of West Virginia, 195 W. Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).

3.

"W. Va. Code, 30-3C-3 [1980] provides that `[t]he proceedings and records of

a review organization shall be confidential . . . Provided, That information, documents or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such [a review] organization. . . .' The language of the statute grants a privilege to all the records and proceedings of a review organization, but no privilege attaches to information, documents or records considered by a review organization if the material is `otherwise available from original sources.'" Syllabus point 3, State ex rel. Shroades v. Henry, 187
i

W. Va. 723, 421 S.E.2d 264 (1992).

4.

"If the language of an enactment is clear and within the constitutional authority of

the law-making body which passed it, courts must read the relevant law according to its unvarnished meaning, without any judicial embroidery. . . ." Syllabus point 3, in part, West Virginia Health Care Cost Review Authority v. Boone Memorial Hospital, 196 W. Va. 326, 472 S.E.2d 411 (1996).

5.

A hospital committee that is responsible for considering applications for admission

to its staff and for issuing staff privileges or credentials in accordance therewith is a "review organization" within the definition of W. Va. Code

Download 29770-0.pdf

West Virginia Law