Source: https://wvyounglawyers.com/practice-handbook/medical-malpractice/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:03:12+00:00

Document:
West Virginia Code § 55-7B-1 et seq.
provisions. Phillips v. Larry’s Drive-In Pharmacy, 220 W. Va. 484, 647 S.E.2d 920 (2007).
patient or representative of a patient.
suffering, mental anguish and grief. W.VA. CODE § 55-7B-8.
whether the plaintiff identifies his or her claim as being under the Act. Id.
testimony. Walker v. Sharma, 221 W.Va. 559, 655 S.E.2d 775, 781 (2007).
The failure to meet the standard of care must be the proximate cause of the injury or death.
expert testimony. Sexton v. Greico, 216 W.Va. 714, 613 S.E.2d 81 (2005).
greater than a 25% chance of improvement, recovery, or survival.
Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W.Va. 682, 558 S.E.2d 681 (2001)).
the undesirable result with the treatment received. Gaither, 199 W.Va. at 714.
patient to enjoy the benefit of the doctrine. Id at 755, 671 S.E.2d at 760.
further surgical procedures that were subsequently performed in West Virginia.
2 for more information on the West Virginia borrowing statute.
concealment, or misrepresentation, the limitation period is tolled.
setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought must be set forth within thirty days.
ensures that only cases with some degree of merit will be filed.
sufficiency of a claimant’s pre-suit notice of claim or screening certificate of merit under W.Va.
opportunity to address and correct, the alleged defects and insufficiencies. Hinchman at Syl. Pt.
a more definite statement of the notice of claim and screening certificate of merit.
to include such periods of time.
informed consent and therefore, the claimant did not need to file a certificate of merit. Id.
expect defense motions relative to the merits of the claim, even with experts.
within thirty days with any objections articulated pursuant to Hinchman.
the mediation has concluded, whichever occurs last.
little or no benefit to a healthcare provider for doing so.
upon hearing that the failure to disclose the contents would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Such materials are deemed confidential.
records must be reasonably related to the plaintiff’s claims and be within the party’s control.
determine whether access should be permitted.
seek a hearing from the court.
assessed pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
defendant. It is incumbent upon the defendant to schedule the conference upon proper notice.
identification of contested issues of fact and law, and progress or issues concerning discovery.
many potential issues as discovery proceeds. Mediation may also be ordered at this time.
considerable amount of effort required, compared with the relative benefit.
discovery plan. However, other judges will have no idea why the lawyer requests such a conference.
the presentation exceeds the limits of propriety in statements as to evidence or other comments.
verdict with the attorneys and the parties.
These proceedings are not recorded, although recordings may be arranged at a party’s own expense.
the statements by counsel, are not admissible in any evidentiary proceeding.
to a West Virginia Civil Procedure Rule 68 offer of judgment and also provides for attorney fees.
This option, like the pre-suit mediation, is rarely agreed to by health care providers.
unconstitutional by the West Virginia Supreme Court. In Louk v. Cormier, 218 W.Va.
retroactively applied to cases pending in circuit court or on appeal when Louk was decided.
Mayhorn v. Logan Medical Foundation, 193 W.Va. 42, 454 S.E. 2d 87 (1994).
Financial records of the expert are not discoverable unless good cause can be shown to the court.
qualified to state an opinion.
529 S.E.2d 600, 606 (2000) (citing Murphy v. Schwartz, 739 S.W.2d 777, 778 (Tenn. Ct. App.
of powers, equal protection, special legislation or the ‘certain remedy’ provisions . . .” Syl. Pt.
applied. Karpacs-Brown v. Murthy, 224 W. Va. 516, 686 S.E.2d 746 (2009).
(referencing § 55-7B-9a) are included in the 2003 amendments.
apply only to parties to a medical professional liability action, and not to non-party tortfeasors.
ostensible agency claim where the original claim was filed prior to the Act’s amendment.
This provision eliminates third-party claims unless the injured party can show that the health care provider acted willfully or in wanton disregard of foreseeable risks of harm to the third party.
This section does not prevent a personal representative from maintaining a wrongful death action, a derivative claim, or a claim for loss of consortium.
“emergency medical service agencies” and surgeries required as a result of the emergency condition.
there is willful, wanton or reckless conduct, or where there is a clear violation of triage protocol or emergency health care standards. To date, it appears no defendant has ever obtained the benefit of this cap in a published opinion.
Corp., 724 S.E.2d 250 (W. Va. 2011), vacated, Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct.
West Virginia Nursing Home Act.
Arbitration Act.” Id. But see discussion infra in Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 132 S.
admission process, and before any negligence has occurred, was found to be unenforceable given the policy rationale behind the Federal Arbitration Act.
occurred and when the parameters of risk are better defined, such an agreement is enforceable.
The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.” Id. (citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.
doctrine of unconscionability. Id. at *19-20.
have decreased, and physicians are once again returning to West Virginia.

References: § 55
 v. 
 § 55
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 55
 v. 
 v. 
 v.