IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 

January 2023 Term 

_____________________ 

No. 22-777 

_____________________ 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. WEST VIRGINIA 

DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

HONORABLE ALFRED E. FERGUSON, Judge of the 

Circuit Court of Cabell County, West Virginia, and 

MARY JANE McCOMAS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Deanna R. McDonald, 

Respondents. 

___________________________________________________________ 

Petition for a Writ of Prohibition 

WRIT DENIED 

_________________________________________________________ 

Submitted: May 9, 2023 

Filed: June 8, 2023 

Lou Ann S. Cyrus, Esq. 

Kimberly M. Bandy, Esq. 

Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Counsel for the Petitioner 

W. Jesse Forbes, Esq. 

Forbes Law Offices, PLLC 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Michael A. Woelfel, Esq. 

Woelfel & Woefel, LLP 

Huntington, West Virginia 

Amanda J. Davis, Esq.

L. Dante diTrapano, Esq. 

D. Christopher Hedges, Esq. 

Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Counsel for the Respondents 

FILED

June 8, 2023

released at 3:00 p.m.

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
JUSTICE HUTCHISON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE ARMSTEAD dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
i

SYLLABUS OF THE COURT

1. “The writ of prohibition will issue only in clear cases, where the inferior 

tribunal is proceeding without, or in excess of, jurisdiction.” Syl., Vineyard v. O’Brien, 100 

W. Va. 163, 130 S.E. 111 (1925). 

2. “A writ of prohibition does not lie in the absence of a clear showing that a 

trial court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding, or, having such 

jurisdiction, has exceeded its legitimate power.” Syl. Pt. 1, Fahey v. Brennan, 136 W. Va. 

666, 68 S.E.2d 1 (1951).

3. “In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for 

cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower 

tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether 

the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the 

desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not 

correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter 

of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal’s order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent 

disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal’s 

order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors 

are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a 

discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be 
ii

satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, 

should be given substantial weight.” Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 

12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996).

4. “The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the 

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his [or her] claim which would entitle him 

[or her] to relief.” Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W. Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 

207 (1977).

5. The Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1 to -12,

applies only when two conditions are satisfied, that is, when a plaintiff (1) sues a “health 

care provider” or “health care facility” for (2) “medical professional liability” as those 

terms are defined under the Act. These are separate and distinct conditions. If either of 

these two conditions is lacking, the Act does not apply.

6. “In interpreting a statute it is the duty of the court to look to the purpose of 

the enactment as well as to the language employed.” Syl. Pt. 2, Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 

115 W. Va. 515, 177 S.E. 188 (1934).

7. “The limits of the application of a statute are generally held to be coextensive 

with the evil or purpose it was intended to suppress or effectuate, and neither stop short of, 
iii

nor go beyond, the purpose which the Legislature had in view.” Syl. Pt. 4, City of 

Charleston v. Charleston Brewing Co., 61 W. Va. 34, 56 S.E. 198 (1906).

8. The West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not a health 

care provider or health care facility as those terms are defined by the Medical Professional 

Liability Act. W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(f), (g). 
1 

HUTCHISON, Justice: 

 The Petitioner, the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“DCR”), invokes our original jurisdiction seeking a writ of prohibition that, in effect, 

would dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed against it filed by Mary Jane McComas (“Ms. 

McComas”), administratrix of the estate of Deanna R. McDonald (“Ms. McDonald”). After 

carefully reviewing the parties’ briefs and oral argument and having thoroughly considered 

the pertinent legal authority and the appendix record, we deny the writ. 

I. Facts and Procedural Background1

On August 20, 2019, Ms. McComas, as adminstratrix2 of the estate of Ms. 

McDonald, sued DCR. The style of the complaint (prepared by counsel) named only DCR 

and “John Doe [sic], unknown employees or agents of the above entity, in their individual 

capacities, and as employees or agents of the above entity[.]” Nevertheless, the body of the 

complaint alleged that “Defendant John Does are unknown employees, representatives, or 

agents of PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc., PSIMed, and or Defendant 

WVDOCR, whose actions/inactions contributed to and caused the death of Deanna R. 

1

Due in no small measure to the circuit court entering several contradictory 

orders, DCR’s brief to this Court explains that “the underlying matter has been 

procedurally lengthy and complicated.” Ms. McComas agrees, characterizing the 

numerous filings in this case as a “procedural nightmare[.]” We will endeavor to simplify 

the background of this case as much as possible. 

2

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) states that the term “administratrix,” 

a female administrator, is archaic. Id. at 57. We agree that the term is outdated. Whether 

male or female, one who administers a deceased’s estate should be termed an administrator. 
2

McDonald.” PrimeCare and PSIMed are medical providers contracted with by DCR to 

provide medical care to inmates in DCR facilities.3

 In the three-count complaint, Ms. 

McComas alleged that Ms. McDonald died while she was incarcerated at Western Regional 

Jail (“WRJ”). The first count of the complaint was entitled “Negligence[.]” The second 

count of the complaint was entitled “Medical Professional Negligence[.]” The third count 

of the complaint was entitled “Other Causes of Action Against Doe, the State Agency and 

Defendant Dorsey[.]” 

DCR responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two primary, albeit 

alternate, grounds. First, DCR invoked West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

DCR specifically argued that Ms. McComas failed to state a claim upon which relief could 

be granted against DCR because all her claims sounded in medical professional negligence. 

DCR contended that such claims could only be asserted against a health care provider under 

the Medical Professional Liability Act (“MPLA”) and that DCR was not a health care 

provider under the MPLA. Second, DCR contended that if it could be sued under the 

MPLA, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction4 because Ms. McComas did not 

satisfy the MPLA jurisdictional prerequisites contained in West Virginia Code § 55-7B-6.

3

DCR filed a third-party complaint and an amended third-party complaint 

against PrimeCare, but the circuit court granted PrimeCare’s motion to dismiss the 

amended third-party complaint filed against it by DCR.

4

West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal of a 

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
3

After an exchange of briefs in circuit court concerning the motion to dismiss, 

Ms. McComas filed a motion under Rule 15(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil 

Procedure seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Ultimately, the circuit court 

concluded that the amended complaint was the “operative pleading” in the case. 

According to the amended complaint,5 (which names only DCR and “John 

Doe,” which it defines as DCR employees and agents),

6 Ms. McDonald was a pretrial 

detainee at WRJ between August 19 and 21, 2017. She was booked into WRJ at 9:35 p.m. 

on August 19, 2017. Upon intake into WRJ, which occurred at 1:42 a.m. on August 20, 

Ms. McDonald was evaluated by Shannon Estep, who Ms. McComas believes to have been 

5

Because DCR’s writ of prohibition is ultimately premised on the circuit 

court’s failure to grant DCR’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted, we take the facts in the amended complaint as true and 

construe the amended complaint in a light most favorable to Ms. McComas. See, e.g., John 

W. Lodge Distrib. Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 161 W. Va. 603, 605, 245 S.E.2d 157, 158 (1978)

(“For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most 

favorable to plaintiff, and its allegations are to be taken as true.”). 

6

The amended complaint does not address PrimeCare other than to state

PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. is created 

under the laws of the State of West Virginia and provided 

medical services to inmates at facilities run by the West 

Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (formerly 

West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility 

Authority), including the Western Regional Jail (WRJ) in 

Cabell County, West Virginia, when Deanna R. McDonald 

died. 
4

a PrimeCare employee. Ms. McDonald was diagnosed as being suicidal and having fevers, 

vomiting, abusing opiates daily, and suffering from seizures. Ms. McDonald disclosed 

recent psychiatric issues and recent treatment at St. Mary’s Medical Center. Ms. McDonald 

was given “special management” status and placed in a holding cell under full suicide 

watch and “detox” precautions “until cleared by a psychologist or psychiatrist.” However, 

no follow-up care or evaluation—including psychological or psychiatric referral—was

ever provided. Intake was completed at 2:07 a.m. on August 20. Unknown WRJ staff were 

assigned to monitor Ms. McDonald’s medical status while in the holding cell, but no one 

performed any wellness checks on her.

Another inmate, Heather Adkins, heard Ms. McDonald making “weird bull 

noises” during the evening of August 20 to 21. Inmate Markayla Stowers reported to State 

police investigators that Ms. McDonald had aspirated during the night of August 20. Inmate 

Stowers also reported that no staff entered the cell to check on Ms. McDonald. Inmate 

Stowers reported that Ms. McDonald had been making “dog-like” noises and had laid face 

down “in her own vomit.” 

At approximately 9:50 a.m. on August 21, a correctional officer named 

Spaulding and LPN Kristin Turner entered Ms. McDonald’s holding cell and called a 

“medical emergency alert” when a “vital check” was being undertaken by them. LPN 

Turner found that Ms. McDonald had no pulse or respiration and was cold to the touch. 
5

Ms. McDonald was discovered with her face and shoulder facing downward “in a pile of 

suicide smocks.”

The amended complaint, like the original complaint, alleges three counts.

The amended complaint, unlike the original complaint, contained no count referencing 

medical negligence. Count I of the amended complaint asserts “[s]tate law and common 

law claims and causes of action[,]” including both intentional and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress, a claim of failure to provide adequate medical care and a claim of failure 

to protect Ms. McDonald from disease. Specifically, Count I of the amended complaint 

avers:

During intake and subsequently, Doe defendants and 

the agency’s representatives, employees and agents, failed to 

ask appropriate mental health questions, failed to appropriately 

score responses and answers to the questions they did ask, 

failed to appropriately assess Ms. McDonald’s health risks, 

failed to take steps to prevent and treat the mental health and 

substance abuse withdrawal risks present, failed to review 

intake notes and material, and failed to assess her medical 

conditions including her mental health conditions. Defendants, 

jointly and severally, were reckless, willful, wanton and 

grossly negligent in failing to immediately obtain and review 

the prior health records of [Ms. McDonald]. This failure was a 

proximate cause of, and served to causally contribute to her 

death. 

. . . 

Upon information and belief, [DCR’s] employees, 

agents and representatives failed to recognize the mental health 

and drug and alcohol abuse withdraw [sic] issues present and 

denied Ms. McDonald appropriate medical care proximately 

causing her eventual death.
6

. . . 

[DCR] has a duty to provide adequate and appropriate 

medical care and to ensure that those persons to whom they 

assign this duty are appropriately providing medical care 

including mental health services.

Count II of the amended complaint alleges:

The actions and inactions of defendants, jointly and 

severally, and the agency’s staff, agents and representatives in 

assessing and treating Deanna R. McDonald’s mental and 

physical health along with their failure to recognize signs of an 

impending health crisis. [sic] Defendants are also jointly liable 

for incarcerating Ms. McDonald in a group housing cell as 

opposed to a medical unit or hospital where she could have 

received appropriate treatment, was negligent and caused the 

death of Deanna R. McDonald. [sic].

Negligence, gross negligence and reckless by the 

defendant agency and Doe include:

a. Failure to follow well-established mental health 

treatment protocols for mental health and substance 

abuse disorders and withdrawal symptoms. 

b. Failure to adequately monitor Ms. McDonald during 

drug and alcohol detox and withdrawal.

c. Failure to carefully and regularly conduct mental health 

checks on Deanna R. McDonald during her 

incarceration.

d. Conducting an intake interview upon Ms. McDonald 

when she was intoxicated.

e. Failing to properly assess the mental health conditions 

present and seek medical and hospital clearance prior to 

incarcerating [Ms. McDonald].

f. Failing to obtain readily available prior health records 

and by failing to give appropriate scores and weight to 

dangers present.
7

 

Finally, Count III of the amended complaint asserts that “Defendants Doe 

acted in a deliberately indifferent manner to the physical health, safety and well-being of 

Ms. McDonald.” Count III specifically alleges that 

Defendant Doe was acting in the scope of employment 

when he or she negligently trained, negligently failed to 

supervise, negligently retained and negligently hired 

defendants Doe. Plaintiff asserts a claim against the 

governmental entity defendant as being vicariously liable in its 

negligent employment of Doe. Plaintiff asserts a claim against 

defendant Doe and the defendant agency, arising from 

negligent hiring, negligent retention and negligent supervision 

of defendant Doe. Plaintiff asserts a scope of employment 

claim against the defendant agency and Doe as each is 

vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions of 

defendant Doe, under the doctrine of respondent superior. 

Negligence of Doe and the agency defendant violated clearly 

established rights of Ms. McDonald and violated clearly 

established law with respect to training, supervision, 

discipline, employment and retention of the individual 

defendants which was a proximate cause of Deanna R. 

McDonald’s disease progression, illness and death.

DCR filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint again, invoking West 

Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and arguing that the amended complaint asserted 

claims sounding in medical professional liability under the MPLA that could not be brought 

against DCR since it was not a health care provider under the MPLA. Alternatively, DCR 

argued that if it could be sued under the MPLA then the circuit court lacked jurisdiction 

over the case since Ms. McComas did not comply with MPLA’s statutory prefiling 

requisites.
8

The circuit court entered a summary order denying DCR’s motion to dismiss 

the amended complaint. DCR subsequently informed the circuit court that it desired to file 

an original jurisdiction petition for writ of prohibition with this Court and, to that end, 

requested that the circuit court enter an order containing findings of fact and conclusions 

of law regarding its denial of the motion to dismiss. The circuit court complied and entered 

such an order on September 22, 2020. DCR then filed its writ of prohibition with this Court. 

 

II. Standards to Issue a Writ of Prohibition and Standard of Review

DCR seeks an original jurisdiction writ of prohibition from this Court.

“Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy.” Central W. Va. Reg’l Airport Auth. v. Canady, 

181 W. Va. 811, 813, 384 S.E.2d 852, 854 (1989). “This Court does not grant extraordinary 

relief lightly.” State ex rel. AMFM, LLC v. King, 230 W. Va. 471, 476, 740 S.E.2d 66, 71 

(2013). Invocation of extraordinary remedies disrupts the natural and orderly progress of 

litigation. See, e.g., McKinney v. Jarvis, 46 M.J. 870, 873–74 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1997)

(“The issuance of such writs is generally not favored as they disrupt the orderly judicial 

process of trial on the merits and then appeal.”). Extraordinary remedies fall outside the 

normal appellate process thereby consuming valuable judicial resources, slowing down the 

administration of justice (even when correctly entertained), and imposing potentially 

unnecessary costs on litigants. Cox v. Braden, 266 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Ky. 2008). Consistent 

with these observations, “[w]e have previously cautioned that writs of prohibition provide 

a drastic remedy[.]” Health Mgmt., Inc. v. Lindell, 207 W. Va. 68, 72, 528 S.E.2d 762, 766 
9

(1999). As such, “[t]he extraordinary remedy of a writ of prohibition is to be used 

sparingly[,]” State ex rel. Almond v. Rudolph, 238 W. Va. 289, 294, 794 S.E.2d 10, 15 

(2016), and its use “is tightly circumscribed.” Lindell, 207 W. Va. at 72, 528 S.E.2d at 766.

In short, “[p]rohibition is not favored by the courts[,]” 72A C.J.S. Prohibition § 4 (2015), 

and “should rarely be granted.” State ex rel. Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC v. Bedell, 247 

W. Va. 41, __, 875 S.E.2d 179, 184 (2022).

“The writ of prohibition shall lie as a matter of right in all cases of usurpation 

and abuse of power, when the inferior court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter in 

controversy, or, having such jurisdiction, exceeds its legitimate powers.” W. Va. Code §

53-1-1 (1923). The right to relief in prohibition must be clear. “The writ of prohibition will 

issue only in clear cases, where the inferior tribunal is proceeding without, or in excess of, 

jurisdiction.” Syl., Vineyard v. O’Brien, 100 W. Va. 163, 130 S.E. 111 (1925). Conversely, 

“[a] writ of prohibition does not lie in the absence of a clear showing that a trial court is 

without jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding, or, having such jurisdiction, has 

exceeded its legitimate power.” Syl. Pt. 1, Fahey v. Brennan, 136 W. Va. 666, 68 S.E.2d 1 

(1951); see generally State ex rel. Rose L. v. Pancake, 209 W. Va. 188, 191, 544 S.E.2d 

403, 406 (2001) (quoting State ex rel. Allen v. Bedell, 193 W.Va. 32, 37, 454 S.E.2d 77, 

82 (1994) (Cleckley, J., concurring)) (“To justify the execution of a writ of prohibition, a 

petitioner ‘has the burden of showing that the lower court’s jurisdictional usurpation was 

clear and indisputable . . . .”). Consequently, “[a] party seeking a writ of prohibition carries 
10

a heavy burden.” State ex rel. W. Va. Secondary Sch. Activities Comm’n v. Cuomo, ___ W. 

Va. ___, ___, 880 S.E.2d 46, 52 (2022).

A party seeking a writ of prohibition must prove either that (1) the lower 

tribunal completely lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or (2) the lower tribunal 

exceeded its legitimate powers. In the first situation, the party must prove the lower tribunal 

lacked jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter. As to the second situation, we 

have explained:

In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of 

prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction 

but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded 

its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) 

whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate 

means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) 

whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way 

that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower 

tribunal’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) 

whether the lower tribunal’s order is an oft repeated error or 

manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or 

substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal’s order 

raises new and important problems or issues of law of first 

impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a 

useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary 

writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need 

not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of 

clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial 

weight.

Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996).
11

DCR’s request for a writ of prohibition flows from the circuit court’s order 

denying DCR’s motion to dismiss Ms. McComas’s lawsuit against it under Rule 12(b)(6).

This is of some moment because the law relating to Rule 12(b)(6) motions provides the 

procedural parameters to determine if the circuit court’s order was clearly erroneous as a 

matter of law. 

Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a circuit court to dismiss a claim when a plaintiff 

has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) 

tests the adequacy of the claims and the notice provided by the allegations in the pleading.” 

Mountaineer Fire & Rescue Equip., LLC v. City Nat’l Bank of W. Va., 244 W. Va. 508, 

520, 854 S.E.2d 870, 882 (2020). “When a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is made, the pleading 

party has no burden of proof. Rather, the burden is upon the moving party to prove that no 

legally cognizable claim for relief exists.” Id., 854 S.E.2d at 882. “For purposes of the 

motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and 

its allegations are to be taken as true.” John W. Lodge Distrib. Co., 161 W. Va. at 605, 245 

S.E.2d at 158. “The trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the 

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his [or her] claim which would entitle him 

[or her] to relief.” Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W. Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 

207 (1977). Given this background, “this Court has previously noted, motions to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6) are ‘viewed with disfavor and [should be] rarely granted.’” Evans v. 
12

United Bank, Inc., 235 W. Va. 619, 627, 775 S.E.2d 500, 508 (2015) (quoting John W. 

Lodge Distributing Co., Inc., 161 W.Va. at 606, 245 S.E.2d at 159).

Bearing these standards in mind, we turn to the issues before the Court. 

III. Discussion

DCR’s primary argument to this Court is that the allegations contained in the 

amended complaint fall within the MPLA’s definition of “medical professional liability.”

DCR then argues that only a health care provider as defined by the MPLA can be sued for 

medical professional liability. It finally concludes, “[b]ecause the [DCR] is not a health 

care provider, the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, which are based upon 

medical professional liability, regardless of how pled, should be dismissed against it.”

Ms. McComas concurs that “claims for medical professional liability can 

only be asserted against health care providers.” She, however, takes issue with DCR’s 

characterization of the allegations in the amended complaint as raising medical 

professional liability claims. Ms. McComas argues that “the Amended Complaint contains 

no allegations of medical professional liability and contains no allegations of medical 

negligence against any healthcare professionals or facility.” Ms. McComas argues that 

“[w]hile the [DCR] does not owe any inmate, including the Respondent’s decedent Deanna 

McDonald, a duty of care with respect to the provision of health care, [DCR] does owe all 

persons housed in the facility the duty to ensure that the [sic] health care is available, and 
13

that the inmate has access to it.” (emphasis in original). According to Ms. McComas, 

“[t]hat is not providing health care, it is ensuring it.” While we agree with Ms. McComas

that a writ of prohibition should be denied, we deny the writ for somewhat different reasons 

than she advances.7

This prohibition case presents a question of statutory interpretation. “As with 

any matter involving the interpretation and application of statutes, we first must determine 

the Legislature’s intent in promulgating the statutory law at issue.” State ex rel. Tucker 

Cnty. Solid Waste Auth. v. W. Va. Div. of Lab., 222 W. Va. 588, 595, 668 S.E.2d 217, 224 

(2008). In such a circumstance, “[w]e look first to the statute’s language. If the text, given 

its plain meaning, answers the interpretive question, the language must prevail and further 

inquiry is foreclosed.” Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t, 195 W. Va. 573, 587, 

466 S.E.2d 424, 438 (1995). Since “[t]he MPLA is a definition-based statute” and “[i]ts 

applicability is set forth in a series of definitions[,]” Thomas J. Hurney, Jr. & Jennifer M. 

Mankins, Medical Professional Liability Litigation in West Virginia: Part II, 114 W. Va. 

L. Rev. 573, 576 (2012), we begin our analysis with the MPLA’s definitions section.

7

“When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited 

to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent 

power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law.” State v. Blake, 197 

W. Va. 700, 706, n.10, 478 S.E.2d 550, 556 n.10 (1996) (citations omitted); cf. State v. 

Omechinski, 196 W. Va. 41, 44, 468 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1996) (“For different reasons, we 

agree with the State and find no reversible error in this case.”).
14

The 2017 version8 of the MPLA defined “Medical professional liability” as 

any liability for damages resulting from the death or injury of 

a person for any tort or breach of contract based on health care 

services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a 

health care provider or health care facility to a patient. It also 

means other claims that may be contemporaneous to or related 

to the alleged tort or breach of contract or otherwise provided, 

all in the context of rendering health care services.

W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(i). “Health care” is defined under the MPLA as 

(1) Any act, service, or treatment provided under, pursuant to, 

or in the furtherance of a physician’s plan of care, a health care 

facility’s plan of care, medical diagnosis, or treatment;

(2) Any act, service, or treatment performed or furnished, or 

which should have been performed or furnished, by any health 

care provider or person supervised by or acting under the 

direction of a health care provider or licensed professional for, 

to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, 

treatment, or confinement, including, but not limited to, 

staffing, medical transport, custodial care, or basic care, 

infection control, positioning, hydration, nutrition, and similar 

patient services; and

(3) The process employed by health care providers and health 

care facilities for the appointment, employment, contracting, 

credentialing, privileging, and supervision of health care 

providers.

Id. § 55-7B-2(e). In turn a “Health care facility” is

8

The 2017 version of the MPLA’s definition section was in effect both when 

Ms. McDonald passed away and when Ms. McComas filed her original complaint. The

2017 definitions are identical to those contained in the most recent version of the MPLA. 
15

any clinic, hospital, pharmacy, nursing home, assisted living 

facility, residential care community, end-stage renal disease 

facility, home health agency, child welfare agency, group 

residential facility, behavioral health care facility or 

comprehensive community mental health center, 

intellectual/developmental disability center or program, or 

other ambulatory health care facility, in and licensed, 

regulated, or certified by the State of West Virginia under state 

or federal law and any state-operated institution or clinic 

providing health care and any related entity to the health care 

facility[,]

id. § 55-7B-2(f), while a “Health care provider” is

a person, partnership, corporation, professional limited 

liability company, health care facility, entity, or institution 

licensed by, or certified in, this state or another state, to provide 

health care or professional health care services, including, but 

not limited to, a physician, osteopathic physician, physician 

assistant, advanced practice registered nurse, hospital, health 

care facility, dentist, registered or licensed practical nurse, 

optometrist, podiatrist, chiropractor, physical therapist, 

speech-language pathologist, audiologist, occupational 

therapist, psychologist, pharmacist, technician, certified 

nursing assistant, emergency medical service personnel, 

emergency medical services authority or agency, any person 

supervised by or acting under the direction of a licensed 

professional, any person taking actions or providing service or 

treatment pursuant to or in furtherance of a physician’s plan of 

care, a health care facility’s plan of care, medical diagnosis or 

treatment; or an officer, employee, or agent of a health care 

provider acting in the course and scope of the officer’s, 

employee’s or agent’s employment.

Id. § 55-7B-2(g). Finally, the MPLA defines a “Patient” as “a natural person who receives 

or should have received health care from a licensed health care provider under a contract, 

expressed or implied.” Id. § 55-7B-2(l).
16

Running throughout the definition section of the MPLA is the Legislature’s 

concern for professional health care providers or health care facilities being sued for

medical professional negligence in providing medical or health care. See, e.g., W. Va. Code 

§ 55-7B-2(i) (emphasis added) (defining “medical professional liability” as “any liability 

for damages resulting from the death or injury of a person for any tort or breach of contract 

based on health care services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health 

care provider or health care facility to a patient.”); id. § 55-7B-2(m) (emphasis added) 

(defining “patient” as “a natural person who receives or should have received health care 

from a licensed health care provider under a contract, expressed or implied.”). Thus, our 

review establishes (and we so hold) that the Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. 

Code §§ 55-7B-1 to -12, applies only when two conditions are satisfied, that is, when a 

plaintiff (1) sues a “health care provider” or “health care facility” for (2) “medical 

professional liability” as those terms are defined under the Act. These are separate and 

distinct conditions. If either of these two conditions is lacking, the Act does not apply. We 

now examine whether DCR is a “health care provider” or “health care facility” under the 

MPLA. We conclude that it is not. 

DCR acknowledges in its Petition for Writ of Prohibition that it “is not a 

health care provider as defined by W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(g)[.]” After independently 

reviewing the MPLA, we agree. DCR is not listed as a health care provider or health care 

facility under the MPLA nor does it fall within the ambit of any of the individuals or groups 

identified in the MPLA as health care providers or health care facilities. See W. Va. Code 
17

§ 55-7-2(f), (g). These omissions of DCR from the MPLA’s definitions section establish 

that the Legislature did not mean to include DCR as a health care provider or health care 

facility. See Phillips v. Larry’s Drive-In Pharmacy, Inc., 220 W. Va. 484, 493, 647 S.E.2d 

920, 929 (2007) (“We believe that there is no better definition of what constitutes the 

medical care community, and therefore what groups and individuals are included as ‘health 

care provider[s]’ under the MPLA, than the unambiguous and exclusive list of defined 

providers in W. Va. Code, 55–7B–2(c) [now (g)].”).

Furthermore, “[i]t is a cardinal rule governing the interpretation of statutes 

that the purpose for which a statute has been enacted may be resorted to by the courts in 

ascertaining the legislative intent.” State ex rel. Bibb v. Chambers, 138 W. Va. 701, 717, 

77 S.E.2d 297, 306 (1953). Indeed, “in interpreting a statute it is the duty of the court to 

look to the purpose of the enactment as well as to the language employed.” Syl. Pt. 2, 

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 115 W. Va. 515, 177 S.E. 188 (1934). As we have explained, 

“[t]he limits of the application of a statute are generally held to be coextensive with the evil 

or purpose it was intended to suppress or effectuate, and neither stop short of, nor go 

beyond, the purpose which the Legislature had in view.” Syl. Pt. 4, City of Charleston v. 

Charleston Brewing Co., 61 W. Va. 34, 56 S.E. 198 (1906). The Legislature included a 

legislative findings and declaration of purpose section in the MPLA. W. Va. Code § 55-

7B-1. A review of this section also leads us to conclude that the Legislature did not intend 

the MPLA to apply to DCR.
18

The Legislature passed the MPLA in an effort to remedy what it perceived 

as a crisis in mounting lawsuits against professional health care providers and health care 

facilities that led to difficulty in procuring reasonable liability insurance for the medical 

community. See W. Va. Code § 55-7-1 (“It is the duty and responsibility of the Legislature 

to balance the rights of our individual citizens to adequate and reasonable compensation 

with the broad public interest in the provision of services by qualified health care providers 

and health care facilities who can themselves obtain the protection of reasonably priced 

and extensive liability coverage[.]”); see also Mathis v. Ziegler, No. CV 5:18-01111, 2019 

WL 7875166, at *5 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2019) (footnote omitted), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 5:18-CV-01111, 2020 WL 598398 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 6, 

2020) (“The Legislature enacted the MPLA in response to a perceived crisis in the 

availability and affordability of liability insurance for health care providers and the 

availability of quality health care for patients. W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1.”); Thomas J. 

Hurney, Jr. & Rob J. Aliff, Medical Professional Liability in West Virginia, 105 W. Va. L. 

Rev. 369, 371 (2003) (“The MPLA was passed in the face of an insurance crisis in West 

Virginia which materially limited the ability of hospitals and physicians to obtain 

coverage.”). In passing the MPLA the Legislature sought “to find a balance between the 

rights of injured persons and the desire to maintain a stable health care system in our State.” 

Louk v. Cormier, 218 W. Va. 81, 92, 622 S.E.2d 788, 799 (2005). Thus, the MPLA is 

concerned with those who provide health care. It is important to recognize that DCR does 

not provide health care itself, but only provides access to health care through its contract 

with PrimeCare. “[P]roviding ‘access’ to health care is considerably different from actually 
19

providing such care.” Est. of Harper ex rel. Al-Hamim v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth.,

140 P.3d 273, 277 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). Extending the MPLA to encompass DCR would 

do nothing to advance the purpose of the MPLA as set forth in the Act’s legislative findings 

and declaration of purpose.

Neither the MPLA’s plain language nor its legislatively avowed purpose 

support the conclusion that DCR is a health care provider or health care facility under the 

Act. We therefore hold that the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation

is not a health care provider or health care facility as those terms are defined by the Medical 

Professional Liability Act. W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(f), (g).9

 

As to whether the amended complaint alleges medical professional 

negligence, the claims asserted against DCR sound not in medical professional negligence 

but in ordinary negligence in failing to reasonably oversee inmates and to provide them 

access to medical care. In other words, the duty the amended complaint claims that DCR 

owed to Ms. McDonald was not that of health care provider to patient, but of custodian to 

inmate to provide reasonable care and protection from reasonably foreseeable harm. See 

generally 60 Am. Jur. 2d Penal and Correctional Institutions § 158 (2014) (footnotes 

9

It is for this reason that we do not find that State ex rel. PrimeCare Med. of W. Va, 

Inc. v. Faircloth, 242 W. Va. 335, 835 S.E.2d 579 (2019) helps DCR. In that case, there 

was no dispute that the only petitioner, PrimeCare, was a “health care provider.” Id. at 342 

n.16, 835 S.E.2d at 586 n.16. 
20

omitted) (“A jailer owes a duty to prisoners to keep them safe, protect them from 

unnecessary harm, and exercise reasonable and ordinary care for their life and health.

Custodians may have particular duties, depending on their knowledge of risks to inmates; 

thus, if an inmate’s suicidal tendencies are known, the custodian’s duty is elevated.”). To 

the extent that the amended complaint’s allegations may sound in medical professional 

negligence based on any provider to patient relationship between Ms. McDonald and 

PrimeCare, Ms. McComas properly observes that a plaintiff is not required to sue all 

tortfeasors and the decision to sue all or only some of them is up to the plaintiff alone. See, 

e.g., Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7 (1990) (“It has long been the rule that it is not 

necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.”); Robbins 

Music Corp. v. Alamo Music, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 29, 31 (S.D.N.Y.1954) (“It is hornbook 

law that an aggrieved party is not compelled to sue all tort-feasors. He may sue one or more 

or all of them, at his discretion.”). Whether that choice turns out to be wise or unwise, it is 

a choice with which Ms. McComas must ultimately live.

10

10For example, we cannot discern what impact, if any, West Virginia’s nonparty fault statute, W. Va. Code § 55-7-13d (2016), would have on this case. That is a 

matter that must be determined in the first instance in the circuit court. 
21

Because the MPLA does not apply to DCR, the circuit court did not commit 

clear error as a matter of law in declining to dismiss the amended complaint. Accordingly, 

there is no basis to issue a writ of prohibition.11 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the writ of prohibition is denied. 

Writ denied.

11The amended complaint raises a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional 

deliberate indifference claim. DCR correctly notes that such a claim can only be brought 

against a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that, as a state agency, it is not a “person”

subject to a suit for damages under that section. See, e.g., Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 

1375, 1388 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[N]either the Commonwealth of Virginia nor its Department 

of Corrections is a proper party to a section 1983 suit[.]”); Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. 

Supp.2d 723, 738 (S.D.W. Va. 2009) (“The State and its agencies such as the Division of 

Corrections are not ‘persons’ amenable to suit under Section 1983 for damages.”). Ms. 

McComas agrees and in her prohibition response states that she is only suing the “John 

Doe” individual defendants, and not DCR, for deliberate indifference.