1

No. 23-ICA-265 – St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon, Inc. d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital v. 

Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hospital Company and the West Virginia Health Care 

Authority

LORENSEN, J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe this Court 

lacks appellate jurisdiction to review an Authority reviewability decision.

1 St. Joseph’s 

asks this Court to reverse the Authority’s July 12, 2023, Amended Decision, declining to 

require Stonewall to submit a proposed relocation of its hospital to the Authority’s 

certificate of need review process. When St. Joseph’s appealed the Authority’s decision to 

us, Stonewall timely challenged our jurisdiction.

West Virginia Code § 51-11-4 (2022) is the primary statute setting forth the 

general scope of our Court’s jurisdiction. The statute flatly states that “[t]he Intermediate 

Court of Appeals has no original jurisdiction.” Id. at § 51-11-4(a). Without any original 

jurisdiction, this Court sits exclusively as a court of appeal with limited jurisdiction over 

certain matters.

1 A request for a ruling on reviewability asks the Authority to “determine whether a 

proposed health service is subject to the certificate of need or exemption process.” W. Va. 

Code § 16-2D-7 (2016).

FILED

May 23, 2024

released at 3:00 p.m.

ASHLEY N. DEEM, DEPUTY CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Our appellate jurisdiction to review an appeal of the Authority’s decision at 

issue is derived, if at all, from West Virginia Code § 16-2D-16a(a)(2) (2021) which 

provides that: “An appeal of a final decision in a certificate of need review... shall be made 

to the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals....” (Emphasis added).2 This 

jurisdictional statute limits our appellate review concerning Authority decisions to final 

decisions arising from a certificate of need review.3 Authority reviewability determinations 

are distinct and separate from Authority certificate of need review decisions following an 

extensive proceeding whereby the Authority evaluates and passes upon an application for 

a certificate of need. The Authority’s Amended Decision only addressed the issue of 

reviewability. The appeal before us does not arise from a final decision in a certificate of 

need review. 

2

Immediately prior to the creation of this Court, appeals of Authority decisions were 

initially heard by the Office of Judges pursuant to West Virginia Code § 16-2D-16. The 

Legislature had amended this statute restricting the appeal of Authority decisions to “the 

authority’s final decision in a certificate of need review.” Compare W. Va. Code § 16-2D16(a) (2016) (“The authority's final decision shall upon request of an affected person be 

reviewed by the Office of Judges.”) with W. Va. Code § 16-2D-16(a) (2017) (“An applicant 

or an affected person may appeal the authority's final decision in a certificate of need 

review to the Office of Judges.”). Accordingly, the statutory text that once permitted 

administrative review of “the authority’s final decision” was purposefully changed by the 

Legislature in 2017 to allow only appeals of final decisions in a “certificate of need review” 

which does not in my opinion include reviewability determinations.

3

“The general rule of statutory construction requires that a specific statute be given 

precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter[.]” Robinson v. City 

of Bluefield, 234 W. Va. 209, 214, 764 S.E.2d 740, 745 (2014) (quoting Syl. Pt. 1, UMWA 

by Trumka v. Kingdon, 174 W. Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984)).
3

By concluding that Stonewall’s proposed relocation was not subject to 

certificate of need process, observing its long-standing past practice, the Authority declined

to undertake the extensive review. The Petitioner asks this Court to compel the Authority 

to subject Stonewall’s proposed relocation to a rigorous regulatory process that the 

Legislature in 2023 significantly circumscribed. Whether the law imposes a duty upon the 

Authority to act contrary to its past practice regarding prior relocation matters is simply 

not an appropriate question for this Court. The relief St. Joseph’s seeks sounds in

mandamus, an extraordinary writ, over which this Court expressly has no jurisdiction. See 

W. Va. Code § 51-11-4(d)(10) (2022).

4

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 

4 See also W. Va. Code § 51-1-3 (1915) (“The Supreme Court of Appeals shall have 

original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition.”).