Court Opinion

ID: 9895879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 20:14:10.459633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:21.580925
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                                FILED
                                 September 2023 Term
                                                                        November 8, 2023
                               _____________________                         released at 3:00 p.m.
                                                                         EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                         SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                    No. 22-0202                               OF WEST VIRGINIA

                               _____________________

      BARBARA STINE TRIVETT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
                          JASPER TRIVETT,
                       Plaintiff Below, Petitioner,

                                           v.

     SUMMERS COUNTY COMMISSION d/b/a SUMMERS COUNTY OFFICE
         OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT and CARMEN CALES,
                   Defendants Below, Respondents.

       ___________________________________________________________

                   Appeal from the Circuit Court of Summers County
                        The Honorable Robert A. Irons, Judge
                              Civil Action No. 21-C-27

                  AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED, IN PART,
                    AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
         _________________________________________________________

                             Submitted: September 6, 2023
                               Filed: November 8, 2023

John J. Mize, Esq.                                    Drannon L. Adkins, Esq.
MIZE LAW FIRM, PLLC                                   Wendy E. Greve, Esq.
Beckley, West Virginia                                Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown
Counsel for the Petitioner                                    & Poe, PLLC
                                                      Charleston, West Virginia
                                                      Counsel for the Respondents

JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE ARMSTEAD concurs, in part, and dissents, in part, and reserves the right to file
a separate opinion.
JUSTICE HUTCHISON concurs, in part, and dissents, in part, and reserves the right to file
a separate opinion.
                              SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

       1.     “‘“‘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 claim which would entitle him to relief.’

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).” Syllabus Point

3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., Inc., 160 W. Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977).’ Syl. Pt.

2, Boone v. Activate Healthcare, LLC, 245 W. Va. 476, 859 S.E.2d 419 (2021).” Syl. Pt.

2, Judy v. E. W. Va. Cmty. & Tech. Coll., 246 W. Va. 483, 874 S.E.2d 285 (2022).

      2.       “‘“‘Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss

a complaint is de novo.’ Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick,

Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995).” Syllabus Point 1, Barber v. Camden Clark

Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 240 W. Va. 663, 815 S.E.2d 474 (2018).’ Syl. Pt. 1, Boone v. Activate

Healthcare, LLC, 245 W. Va. 476, 859 S.E.2d 419 (2021).” Syl. Pt. 1, Judy v. E. W.

Virginia Cmty. & Tech. Coll., 246 W. Va. 483, 874 S.E.2d 285 (2022).

       3.      “W. Va. Code, 29-12A-6 (1986), violates the Equal Protection Clause found

in Section X of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution to the extent that it denies to

minors the benefit of the statute of limitations provided in the general tolling statute, W.

                                               i
Va. Code, 55-2-15 (1923).” Syl. Pt. 3, Whitlow v. Bd. of Educ. of Kanawha Co., 190 W.

Va. 223, 438 S.E.2d 15 (1993).

       4.       “‘It is the duty of a court to construe a statute according to its true intent,

and give to it such construction as will uphold the law and further justice. It is as well the

duty of a court to disregard a construction, though apparently warranted by the literal sense

of the words in a statute, when such construction would lead to injustice and absurdity.’

Syllabus Point 2, Click v. Click, 98 W.Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194 (1925).” Syl. Pt. 2, Conseco

Fin. Servicing Corp. v. Myers, 211 W. Va. 631, 567 S.E.2d 641 (2002).

       5.       The minority tolling provision set forth in the Governmental Tort Claims

and Insurance Reform Act, West Virginia Code section 29-12A-6(b) (2023), does not

extend to the executor or administrator of a deceased child’s estate in a lawsuit brought on

behalf of a child who was under the age of ten at the time of his or her death.

      6.        “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.” Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. W. Va. Div.

of Corr. & Rehab. v. Ferguson, 248 W. Va. 471, 889 S.E.2d 44 (2023).

                                              ii
       7.       “The ‘discovery rule’ is generally applicable to all torts, unless there is a

clear statutory prohibition to its application.” Syl. Pt. 2, Dunn v. Rockwell, 225 W. Va. 43,

689 S.E.2d 255 (2009).

       8.        “A five-step analysis should be applied to determine whether a cause of

action is time-barred. First, the court should identify the applicable statute of limitation for

each cause of action. Second, the court (or, if questions of material fact exist, the jury)

should identify when the requisite elements of the cause of action occurred. Third, the

discovery rule should be applied to determine when the statute of limitation began to run

by determining when the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should

have known, of the elements of a possible cause of action, as set forth in Syllabus Point 4

of Gaither v. City Hosp., Inc., 199 W.Va. 706, 487 S.E.2d 901 (1997). Fourth, if the

plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the discovery rule, then determine whether the

defendant fraudulently concealed facts that prevented the plaintiff from discovering or

pursuing the cause of action. Whenever a plaintiff is able to show that the defendant

fraudulently concealed facts which prevented the plaintiff from discovering or pursuing the

potential cause of action, the statute of limitation is tolled. And fifth, the court or the jury

should determine if the statute of limitation period was arrested by some other tolling

doctrine. Only the first step is purely a question of law; the resolution of steps two through

                                              iii
five will generally involve questions of material fact that will need to be resolved by the

trier of fact. Syl. Pt. 5, Dunn v. Rockwell, 225 W. Va. 43, 689 S.E.2d 255 (2009).

       9.     “‘In a wrongful death action, under the discovery rule, the statute of limitation

contained in W. Va. Code, 55-7-6(d) [(1992)] begins to run when the decedent’s

representative knows or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know (1) that the

decedent has died; (2) that the death was the result of a wrongful act, neglect, or default;

(3) the identity of the person or entity who owed the decedent a duty to act with due care

and who may have engaged in conduct that breached that duty; and (4) that the wrongful

act, neglect or default of that person or entity has a causal relation to the decedent’s death.’

Syllabus point 8, Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W.Va. 682, 558 S.E.2d 681 (2001).” Syl. Pt.

4, Mack-Evans v. Hilltop Healthcare Ctr., Inc., 226 W. Va. 257, 700 S.E.2d 317 (2010).

                                              iv
WOOTON, Justice:

              This appeal presents intertwined questions as to which of several possible

statutes of limitation applies in a wrongful death action brought by the petitioner, Barbara

Stine Trivett (“the petitioner”), administratrix of the estate of the decedent, Jasper Trivitt

(“baby Jasper”), where baby Jasper was under the age of ten at the time of his death and

the respondents, Summers County Commission d/b/a Summers County Office of

Emergency Management (“respondent Emergency Management” or “911”) and its

employee Carmen Cales (“respondent Cales”), are governmental entities; and under what

circumstances those statutes, if applicable, may be tolled. The circuit court granted the

respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the petitioner’s complaint

had not been timely filed. Specifically, the court held that the two-year statute of limitations

contained in the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act (“the Tort Claims

Act” or “the Act”), West Virginia Code section 29-12A-6(a) (2023), applied to the

petitioner’s claims, and that the statute of limitations was not tolled by either the minority

tolling provision contained in the Act, West Virginia Code section 29-12A-6(b), or the

discovery rule as explicated in this Court’s precedents.

              Based on our review of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the applicable

law, the appendix record, and all other matters before this Court, we affirm, in part, reverse,

in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                               1
                         I. Facts and Procedural Background

             On September 15, 2019, at approximately 4:18 a.m., the petitioner found her

five-week-old son, Baby Jasper, unresponsive. The petitioner immediately called

respondent Emergency Management on its 911 line and was connected to respondent

Cales. After the petitioner had described the situation, and while still on the phone with

her, respondent Cales made two unsuccessful attempts to contact Emergency Medical

Services (“EMS”), the first attempt taking place at 4:19 a.m. and the second at 4:20 a.m.

At this point, the petitioner requested instructions on how to perform cardiopulmonary

resuscitation (“CPR”) on baby Jasper, a request which respondent Cales declined, stating

that “we do not give directions” on how to perform CPR. 1 The petitioner then asked

      1
         We note that West Virginia Code section 24-6-5 (Supp. 2023) was amended,
effective July 5, 2020, to require in relevant part:

             (e) As a condition of continued employment, persons
             employed to dispatch emergency calls in county emergency
             dispatch centers shall successfully complete:

             ....

             (2) A nationally recognized training course in emergency
             cardiovascular care for telephonic cardiopulmonary
             resuscitation selected by the medical director of an emergency
             medical dispatch center. This training course shall incorporate
             protocols for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and compression-
             only cardiopulmonary resuscitation and continuing education,
             as appropriate.

                                            2
whether she should transport baby Jasper to Summers County Hospital on her own, and

respondent Cales instructed her to do so.

              The petitioner and her husband immediately set out on a frantic trip to the

hospital, with Mr. Trivett driving the car and the petitioner attempting to perform CPR on

baby Jasper. By the time they arrived at the hospital baby Jasper had been deprived of

oxygen for at least nine minutes, and although he was revived at the hospital and flown to

Ruby Memorial Hospital, he died on September 17, 2019, two days later.

              Approximately one week after baby Jasper’s death, the petitioner, through

counsel, filed a Freedom of Information Act 2 request for the 911 audio from September 15,

2019. 3 The audiotape, which was received by counsel on October 14, 2019, revealed that

respondent Cales had reached EMS on her third attempt, some seventeen seconds after

        Because this requirement was not in effect at the time of the tragic events in this
case, the petitioner does not rely upon the statute as support for her claims relating to
respondent Cales’ refusal to provide CPR instruction. Rather, the petitioner’s complaint
referred to her expert’s opinion, contained in the screening certificate of merit, that
respondent Cales’ refusal violated a national standard of care for 911 operators.

       2
        See W. Va. Code §§ 29B-1-1 to -7 (2023) (statutory scheme pertaining to Freedom
of Information requests).
       3
        Although the petitioner explains in her brief the events that prompted her to retain
counsel and file her FOIA request, this information is not contained in any testimony or
evidence before the circuit court and we therefore do not consider it in deciding the issues
presented on appeal.

                                             3
disconnecting from the petitioner. Respondent Cales spoke to ambulance driver Jacob

Woodrum, who asked for the petitioner’s address so that an ambulance could be

dispatched. However, respondent Cales did not provide it, identifying only the general area

in which the petitioner lived and instructing Mr. Woodrum that because the petitioner was

transporting baby Jasper to the hospital, it wasn’t necessary to dispatch an ambulance.

              On September 10, 2021, the petitioner served notice of a wrongful death

claim, together with a screening certificate of merit and an affidavit, on both respondents,

as well as on EMS and Mr. Woodrum, who are party defendants in the underlying case but

not parties to this appeal. Thereafter, on October 12, 2021, she filed her complaint in the

Circuit Court of Summers County. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the

ground, inter alia, that the complaint had been filed after the statute of limitations had run.

Following briefing and oral argument, the circuit court granted the motion, ruling that the

petitioner’s claims against the respondents are governed by the Governmental Tort Claims

and Insurance Reform Act, West Virginia Code sections 29-12A-1 to -18 (2023), wherein

the general statute of limitation set forth in subsection 29-12A-6(a) provides, inter alia, that

“[a]n action against a political subdivision to recover damages for injury, death, or loss to

a minor . . . shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action arose or after

the injury, death or loss was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.” The

circuit court rejected the petitioner’s argument that her case did not fall within this general

two-year limitation, but rather fell within the minority tolling provision in section 29-12A-

                                               4
6(b): where suit is brought “by or on behalf of a minor who was under the age of ten years

at the time of such injury, suit shall be commenced within two years after the cause of

action arose . . . or prior to the minor’s twelfth birthday, whichever provides the longer

period.” The basis for the court’s ruling was its finding that “[b]ased upon a plain reading

of the statute, the [c]ourt cannot conclude that the [minority tolling provision] applies here,

as Jasper regrettably will not have a twelfth birthday. Because Jasper passed before his

twelfth birthday, no such birthday exists in the future to maintain the saving provision’s

applicability.”

              The circuit court also rejected the petitioner’s alternative argument that the

two-year statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule. Specifically, the petitioner

claimed that she did not learn the respondents had been negligent until she received the

911 tape and discovered for the first time that respondent Cales had actually reached Mr.

Woodrum and instructed him not to dispatch an ambulance. In this regard, the court held

that “[w]hile the contents of that conversation may have provided the [petitioner] with a

legal basis for this action, she nevertheless became aware of the factual basis on September

17, 2019. That moment [baby Jasper’s death] triggered the statute of limitations.”

              This appeal followed.

                                              5
                                 II. Standard of Review

              It is well established in this Court’s jurisprudence that

                      “‘“‘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 claim which would entitle
              him to relief.’ Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct.
              99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).” Syllabus Point 3, Chapman v. Kane
              Transfer Co., Inc., 160 W. Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977).’
              Syl. Pt. 2, Boone v. Activate Healthcare, LLC, 245 W. Va. 476,
              859 S.E.2d 419 (2021).”

Syl. Pt. 2, Judy v. E. W. Va. Cmty. & Tech. Coll., 246 W. Va. 483, 874 S.E.2d 285 (2022).

On appeal, we apply a similarly stringent standard of review:

                     “‘“‘Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting
              a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo.’ Syl. Pt. 2, State ex
              rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va.
              770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995).” Syllabus Point 1, Barber v.
              Camden Clark Mem’l Hosp. Corp., 240 W. Va. 663, 815
              S.E.2d 474 (2018).’ Syl. Pt. 1, Boone v. Activate Healthcare,
              LLC, 245 W. Va. 476, 859 S.E.2d 419 (2021).”

246 W. Va. at 484, 874 S.E.2d at 286, Syl. Pt. 1. With these standards in mind, we turn to

the parties’ arguments.

                                      III. Discussion

             The petitioner has consistently alleged that her claims against the respondents

fall within the Tort Claims Act, West Virginia Code sections 29-12A-1 to -18, which

provides, in relevant part:

                                              6
                (c) Subject to sections five and six of this article, a political
                subdivision is liable in damages in a civil action for injury,
                death, or loss to persons or property allegedly caused by an act
                or omission of the political subdivision or of any of its
                employees in connection with a governmental or proprietary
                function, as follows:

                        ....

                (2) Political subdivisions are liable for injury, death, or loss
                to persons or property caused by the negligent performance of
                acts by their employees while acting within the scope of
                employment.

Id. § 29-12A-4(c)(2). The circuit court agreed, noting that the respondents “do not appear

to dispute [the Act’s] applicability.” 4 We leave that legal conclusion undisturbed, for the

reasons discussed infra: the argument here is not whether the Act applies – as it

indisputably does – but what statute of limitations controls: 1) the minority tolling

provision in the Tort Claims Act, which applies in a case involving “injuries, death, or

loss” 5 sustained by a child under the age of ten; 2) the tolling provision in the Medical

Professional Liability Act (“MPLA”), West Virginia Code sections 55-7B-1 to -12 (2016

& Supp. 2023); or 3) the statute of limitations contained in our wrongful death statute, West

       4
         The respondents’ position is a nuanced one: although they do not directly contest
that the petitioner’s claims fall within the Act, inasmuch as the Act contains the immunity
provisions they seek to invoke, they contend that nonetheless the statute of limitations for
any claim involving a death should be that contained in the wrongful death statute, West
Virginia Code section 55-7-6(d) (2016).
       5
           See text infra.

                                               7
Virginia Code section 55-7-5 (2023). Further, regardless of which statute of limitations

governs this case, there is also a question regarding whether the discovery rule applies.

                                             A.

              Under the Tort Claims Act, the general statute of limitations for an action for

damages arising from “injury, death, or loss” to persons or property is that it “shall be

brought within two years after the cause of action arose or after the injury, death or loss

was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever last occurs or within

any applicable shorter period of time for bringing the action provided by this code.” Id. §

29-12A-6(a). However, the Act contains a minority tolling provision:

              An action against a political subdivision to recover damages
              for injury, death, or loss to a minor, brought by or on behalf of
              a minor who was under the age of ten years at the time of such
              injury, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of
              action arose or after the injury, death or loss was discovered or
              reasonably should have been discovered, whichever last
              occurs, or prior to the minor’s twelfth birthday, whichever
              provides the longer period.

Id. § 29-12A-6. The petitioner’s primary argument, both below and on appeal, is that

pursuant to section 29-12A-6(b), the statute of limitations in the instant case did not run

until August 9, 2031, which would have been baby Jasper’s twelfth birthday. In response,

the respondents contend that the minority tolling provision in the Act does not apply in this

case because baby Jasper, having tragically died as an infant, will never have a twelfth

birthday. The circuit court agreed with the respondents that the Act’s minority tolling

                                             8
provision does not apply here: “Because Jasper passed before his twelfth birthday, no such

birthday exists in the future to maintain the saving provision’s applicability.”

                                              1.

              Before we delve into the merits of the petitioner’s argument, we must

consider the respondents’ contention that this issue is moot because this Court held section

6(b) of the Act to be facially unconstitutional in Whitlow v. Bd. of Educ. of Kanawha Co.,

190 W. Va. 223, 438 S.E.2d 15 (1993). In Whitlow, the defendant Board of Education

contended that the timeliness of a minor’s claim for damages was governed by section 29-

12A-6(b) of the Tort Claims Act rather than by the general savings statute, West Virginia

Code section 55-2-15(b) (Supp. 2023), which provides that

              [i]f any person to whom the right accrues to bring any personal
              action other than an action described in subsection (a) of this
              section, suit, or scire facias, or any bill to repeal a grant, shall
              be, at the time the same accrues, an infant or insane, the same
              may be brought within the like number of years after his or her
              becoming of full age or sane that is allowed to a person having
              no such impediment to bring the same after the right accrues,
              or after such acknowledgment as is mentioned in § 55-2-8 of
              this this code, except that it shall in no case be brought after 20
              years from the time when the right accrues.

This Court disagreed, holding in syllabus point three that “W. Va. Code, 29-12A-6 (1986),

violates the Equal Protection Clause found in Section X of Article III of the West Virginia

Constitution to the extent that it denies to minors the benefit of the statute of limitations

                                               9
provided in the general saving statute, W. Va. Code, 55-2-15 (1923).” Whitlow, 190 W.

Va. at 225, 438 S.E.2d at 17, Syl. Pt. 3. In short, we found section 29-12A-6(d) of the Tort

Claims Act to be unconstitutional only as applied in a case where its application would

shorten the applicable statute of limitations for a minor in a suit against a governmental

tortfeasor.

              In the instant case it is beyond argument that the “person to whom the right

accrues to bring any personal action described in subsection (a) of [the general saving

statute]” is baby Jasper’s personal representative – here, his mother – not baby Jasper

himself. See, e.g., McDavid v. United States, 213 W. Va. 592, 598, 584 S.E.2d 226, 232

(2003) (“The wrongful death action ‘shall be brought by and in the name of the personal

representative of such deceased person[.]’”). This is so because the “purpose of the

wrongful death act is to compensate the beneficiaries for the loss they have suffered as a

result of the decedent’s death.” White v. Gosiene, 187 W.Va. 576, 582, 420 S.E.2d 567,

573 (1992). Accordingly, because our general saving statute does not apply to the claims

in this case, the result of applying section 29-12A-6(b) of the Tort Claims Act could only

be to lengthen any statute of limitations that might otherwise apply. Thus, our decision in

Whitlow does not render the petitioner’s argument moot.

                                            10
                                                   2.

              The petitioner contends that under what she characterizes as the plain

language of the Act’s tolling provision, any action for damages resulting from “injury,

death or loss” to a minor must be commenced “within two years after the cause of action

arose or after the injury, death or loss was discovered or reasonably should have been

discovered, whichever last occurs, or prior to the minor’s twelfth birthday, whichever

provides the longer period.” Id. (emphasis added). In this regard, the petitioner argues that

“August 9 will always remain baby Jasper’s birthday, even though he has passed[,]”and

that any finding to the contrary would violate our longstanding rule that “[i]t is not for this

Court arbitrarily to read into a statute that which it does not say. Just as courts are not to

eliminate through judicial interpretation words that were purposely included, we are

obliged not to add to statutes something the Legislature purposely omitted.” Syl. Pt. 4,

State v. Ward, 245 W. Va. 157, 858 S.E.2d 207 (2021) (citation omitted).

              We disagree. First, although the inclusion of the words “injury, death or

loss” in the statutory language seemingly provides support for the petitioner’s argument,

our analysis is aligned with that of the New Mexico Supreme Court, which held in Regents

of University of New Mexico v. Armijo, 704 P.2d 428 (N.M. 1985), that

              [i]n reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals reasoned that
              the minority exception in the statute applied to the infant’s
              cause of action and that this exception allowed the personal
              representative to file suit on the infant’s behalf any time prior
              to the date on which the child would have been nine years of
              age, had he lived. The Court of Appeals determined that

                                              11
                  because the minority exception to the statute immediately
                  follows the clause “injury or death,” the exception is equally
                  applicable to either occurrence. The Court of Appeals cited the
                  plain meaning rule of construction as supporting its
                  interpretation. We disagree with this interpretation.

Id. at 429. The court explained that the very nature of minority tolling provisions militates

against their application in a case involving a deceased minor, because such clauses

                  are enacted to allow time for the full scope of a child’s injury
                  to become apparent, to enable the child to become competent
                  to testify, or to allow the child to act for himself after the
                  disability has been removed[.] . . . Clearly, none these reasons
                  are applicable when the minor dies.

 Id. at 430 (citation omitted). Thus, application of a minority tolling provision in what is, in

 practical effect, a wrongful death action would lead to an absurd result: a lengthy extension

 of time for bringing suit which confers no benefit on the minor, who is deceased, all while

 keeping putative defendants “under the gun” and then requiring them years later to defend

 against stale claims. 6 Cf. Williams v. CMO Mgmt., LLC, 239 W. Va. 530, 537, 803 S.E.2d

 500, 507 (2016) (“Logic impels the conclusion that an incompetent individual’s death is a

 natural moratorium for the tolling of the statute of limitations that was invoked due to a

 disability.”).

        6
         We have held that the purpose of a statute of limitations is “to prevent stale claims
 and enable the defendant to preserve evidence.” Hupp v. Monahan, 245 W. Va. 263, 270,
 858 S.E.2d 888, 895 (2021).

                                                12
               It is well established in our law that

                      “‘[i]t is the duty of a court to construe a statute
               according to its true intent, and give to it such construction as
               will uphold the law and further justice. It is as well the duty of
               a court to disregard a construction, though apparently
               warranted by the literal sense of the words in a statute, when
               such construction would lead to injustice and absurdity.’
               Syllabus Point 2, Click v. Click, 98 W.Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194
               (1925).”

Syl. Pt. 2, Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp. v. Myers, 211 W. Va. 631, 567 S.E.2d 641 (2002).

We conclude that here, although the inclusion of the words “injury, death or loss” in West

Virginia Code section 29-12A-6(b) could warrant the construction urged by the petitioner

– that the minority tolling provision applies even though the minor is deceased – this Court

will disregard said construction because it would lead to an absurd result surely not

intended by the Legislature. See Conseco, 211 W. Va. at 633, 567 S.E.2d at 643.

               Second, the petitioner’s reading of the statute would require us to do exactly

what is forbidden under Ward: changing the words “prior to the minor’s twelfth birthday”

to “prior to what would have been the minor’s twelfth birthday.” See Ward, 245 W. Va. at

157, 858 S.E.2d at 208, Syl. Pt. 4. In this regard, while August 9 will always be the

anniversary of baby Jasper’s birth, “we are not persuaded that ‘birthday,’ as used in the

statute, expresses a clear legislative intent to provide a cutoff for the assertion of legal rights

based on the ‘anniversary’ of a deceased minor’s birth.” Vance v. Henry Ford Health Sys.,

726 N.W.2d 78, 82 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006); see also Dachs v. Hendrix, 354 S.W.3d 95, 100

                                                13
(Ark. 2009) (“The tragic reality of this case is that Elizabeth Dachs was stillborn and will

not have an eleventh birthday.”).

              Contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, we cannot conclude that the words “prior

to what would have been the minor’s twelfth birthday” are necessarily “implied in [section

29-12A-6(b)] or must be included in it in order to make the terms actually used have

effect[.]” Vanderpool v. Hunt, 241 W. Va. 254, 262, 823 S.E.2d 526, 534 (2019) (citation

omitted). As the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in Awve v. Physicians Insurance Company

of Wisconsin, Inc., 512 N.W.2d 216 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994),

              to reach the age of ten years, a minor must be living. If the
              legislature had wanted this language to mean ‘ten years after that
              person’s birth,’ it could have added the phrase ‘by the time the
              minor reaches or would have reached’ the age of ten years. The
              interpretation the parents suggest is not reasonable given the
              plain meaning of the statutory language.

Id. at 218-19 (emphasis added).

              Third, as noted by one commentator, 7 “[c]ase law overwhelmingly supports

defendants on the issue of whether a minority tolling provision extends to administrators

of a deceased minor’s estate,” 8 and indeed, the petitioner has not cited any authority to the

       7
         See Gretchen R. Fuhr, Civil Procedure/Tort Law – Better Off Dead?: Minority
Tolling Provision Cannot Save Deceased Child’s Claim, 31 W. New Eng. L. R. 103, 115
(2009). Although Ms. Fuhr advocates adoption of the petitioner’s position in the instant
case, she does not cite any authority supporting her position and our research discloses
none either prior to or subsequent to the article’s publication.
       8
         It has been held that a minority tolling provision does apply where a minor brings
suit on behalf of his deceased parent. See DeKalb Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hawkins, 655 S.E.2d

                                             14
contrary in her brief or oral argument. See, e.g., Monk v. Kennedy Univ. Hosp., Inc., 279

A.3d 456, 461-62 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022) (“Furthermore, the concept of minority

tolling has no logical application to a decedent’s claims, even where the decedent was a

minor when he or she passed away. The purpose of minority tolling is to preserve claims

until the minor achieves sufficient maturity to be held accountable for the assertion of legal

rights, a circumstance that ceases to exist once a minor dies. The extent of damages

resulting from alleged negligence is often unknowable for minors, whose mental, physical,

and emotional growth may continue for years after the incident giving rise to the claim. In

contrast, the extent of damages resulting from negligence is fully ripe and quantifiable in a

decedent.”); Stevenson v. Ford Motor Co., 608 S.W.3d 109, 133 (Tex. App. 2020)

(“Further, although Abygail Harris was a minor at the time of the automobile accident

when she sustained her fatal injuries and died, once she died, she ceased to be a minor, and

the tolling provisions of § 16.001 ceased to apply.”); Dachs, 354 S.W.3d at 100 (“The

tragic reality of this case is that Elizabeth Dachs was stillborn and will not have an eleventh

birthday. Therefore, giving the words of this statute their ordinary and usually accepted

meaning in common language, as we are required to do, we conclude that her representative

had until two years from the alleged malpractice occurring on September 1, 2004, to

commence suit on her behalf.”); Runstrom v. Allen, 191 P.3d 410, 413 (Mont. 2008) (“After

823, 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (“we conclude that the minority tolling provision of OCGA
§ 9-3-90(a) applies to a wrongful death action brought by a minor for the death of a parent
when the action is not based upon medical malpractice.”).

                                              15
Richard’s death, Ed – as the personal representative of Richard’s estate – was the ‘person

entitled to bring’ the survival claim. See § 27-2-401(1), MCA. It is undisputed that Ed was

not a minor when the cause of action accrued, and he was not – and could not have been –

a minor when he filed the survival action. See § 72-3-501(1), MCA. Based on the plain

language of § 27-2-401(1), MCA, we conclude minority tolling does not apply to the time

after Richard’s death, when Ed – not Richard – was the ‘person entitled to bring’ the

survival action.”); Randolph v. Methodist Hosps., Inc., 793 N.E.2d 231, 236 (Ind. Ct. App.

2003) (“The purpose of the [medical malpractice] act was to provide health care providers

with some protection from malpractice claims in order to preserve the availability of

medical services for the public health and well-being. . . . Interpreting the statute of

limitations exception for minors to include deceased minors would expand liability for

health care providers, and would not be consistent with the goals of the Medical

Malpractice Act.”); Holt v. Lenko, 791 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (“Construing

the minority tolling statute in accordance with the plain meaning of its language, and the

intent of the legislature, we conclude that the statute contemplates a minor plaintiff who is

alive, but whose parent or guardian fails, for some reason, to bring suit on the minor’s

behalf prior to the minor’s eighteenth birthday. There is nothing in the statutory language

that would indicate that the legislature intended that the minority tolling statute would be

available to a deceased minor plaintiff.”); Awve, 512 N.W.2d at 218-19 (“We hold that the

relevant language in sec. 893.56, Stats., ‘by the time that person reaches the age of 10

years,’ is unambiguous. This is because to reach the age of ten years, a minor must be

                                             16
living. If the legislature had wanted this language to mean ‘ten years after that person's

birth,’ it could have added the phrase ‘by the time the minor reaches or would have

reached’ the age of ten years. The interpretation the parents suggest is not reasonable given

the plain meaning of this statutory language.”); Bailey v. Martz, 488 N.E.2d 716, 722 (Ind.

Ct. App. 1986) (“had Mark lived, running of the applicable statute of limitations would

have been tolled until July 28, 1982, his 18th birthday. Because Mark did not live, however,

his right to recover damages . . . was a chose in action which passed on his death to his

personal representative.”); Armijo, 704 P.2d at 430 (“Minority savings clauses are enacted

to allow time for the full scope of a child’s injury to become apparent, to enable the child

to become competent to testify, or to allow the child to act for himself after the disability

has been removed[.] Clearly, none of these reasons are applicable when the minor dies. In

fact, death usually terminates a legal disability. . . . When the term of minority ends either

by the death of the minor or by the minor attaining the specified age, so too must end the

applicability of the minority savings clause of [the statute] and the statute commences to

run at that time.”) (citations omitted)).

              In summary, we find that the petitioner’s arguments are not supported by

principles of statutory construction, are not supported by any of the rationales underlying

the application of minority tolling provisions in non-death cases, and are not supported by

any case law in this State or in any other jurisdiction. In view of the foregoing, we hold

that the minority tolling provision set forth in the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance

Reform Act, West Virginia Code section 29-12A-6(b) (2023), does not extend to the

                                             17
executor or administrator of a deceased child’s estate in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a

child who was under the age of ten at the time of his or her death.

                                              B.

              The petitioner argues that even if the minority tolling provision of the Tort

Claims Act does not apply in this case, the statute of limitations on her claims is nonetheless

tolled pursuant to the MPLA, West Virginia Code section 55-7B-6(i)(1). 9 In this regard,

the petitioner asserts that her claims can be construed as falling within the MPLA for either

or both of two reasons. First, she argues that the services which should have been, but were

not, performed or furnished by the respondents fall within the MPLA’s definition of “health

care”:

              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[.]

Id. § 55-7B-2(e)(2) (emphasis added). Once again, we acknowledge that this argument has

some surface appeal, inasmuch as this Court has expansively read the statute, determining

that

       It is undisputed that if the petitioner’s claims against these respondents fall within
         9

the MPLA, the complaint was timely filed.

                                              18
              when a complaint contains a cause of action that meets the
              definition of ‘heath care’ under West Virginia Code section 55-
              7B-2(e), claims that are either ‘related to’ or ‘contemporaneous
              to’ the medical injury being asserted, ‘all in the context of
              rendering health care services,’ meet the definition, and are
              encompassed in ‘medical professional liability’ as it is defined
              in West Virginia Code section 55-7B-2(i). The ‘health care’
              claim is the ‘anchor;’ it gets you in the door of MPLA
              application to allow for inclusion of claims that are
              ‘contemporaneous to or related to’ that claim, but still must be
              in the overall context of rendering health care services. To put
              a finer point on it, you must have the anchor claim (fitting the
              definition of ‘health care’) and then make the showing that the
              ancillary claims are (1) contemporaneous with or related to that
              anchor claim; and (2) despite being ancillary, are still in the
              context of rendering health care.

State ex rel. W. Va. Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Scott, 246 W. Va. 184, 194, 866 S.E.2d 350, 360

(2021) (footnote omitted). In the instant case, the petitioner’s expert opined that had an

ambulance been dispatched to intercept the petitioner on her way to the hospital, this earlier

medical intervention would, at a minimum, have given baby Jasper a chance of survival

greater than twenty-five percent. Thus, the petitioner claims, the respondents’ decision to

forego sending an ambulance fell squarely within the definition of health care, id. § 55-7B-

2(e)(2), or could be fairly deemed to be “contemporaneous with or related to” the failure

to provide health care. Id.; see Scott, 246 W. Va. at 194, 866 S.E.2d at 360.

              The problem with the petitioner’s argument is that whether or not the

respondents’ failure to dispatch an ambulance can be deemed to fall within the ambit of

“act[s], service[s], or treatment[s]” constituting “health care” or can be fairly characterized

as “health care adjacent,” see text supra, neither respondent is a “health care provider or

person supervised by or acting under the direction of a health care provider or licensed

                                              19
professional[,]” as required by the statute. W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(e)(2). 10 In this regard,

the MPLA defines a health care provider as

              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) (emphasis added).

              Our research discloses that West Virginia law does not require licensure or

certification of a county’s enhanced emergency telephone system; rather, the relevant

statute, West Virginia Code section 24-6-5 (Supp. 2023), sets forth the basic requirements

for such a system, requires the director of each county emergency dispatch center to

develop “policies and procedures to establish a protocol for dispatching emergency medical

       10
         Because the hospital in Scott was unquestionably a health care provider, this
requirement was not discussed in the Court’s opinion.

                                             20
calls implementing a nationally recognized emergency medical dispatch program or an

emergency medical dispatch program approved by the Office of Emergency Medical

Services (“OEMS”)[,]” 11 and provides that “a county commission or the West Virginia

State Police shall seek the advice of both the telephone companies providing local

exchange service within the county and the local emergency providers.” Id. § 24-5-5(c).

Similarly, at the time of the events at issue in this case, persons employed as dispatchers

were required to complete both a forty-hour nationally recognized training course within

one year of their employment and an additional nationally recognized emergency medical

dispatch course or an emergency medical dispatch course approved by the OEMS within

three years of the statute’s enactment or, if employed after July 1, 2013, within one year of

employment. Id. § 24-6-5(e)(1) & (2). 12 Thus, in the instant case respondent Emergency

Management Services was not a health care provider, and respondent Cales was not

“supervised by or acting under the direction of” a health care provider.

                The petitioner argues that even if the respondents are not “health care

providers” under the MPLA, claims based on their failure to dispatch an ambulance are

       11
            W. Va. Code § 24-6-5(f).
       12
          In 2020, the statute was amended to require that dispatchers complete a
“nationally recognized training course in emergency cardiovascular care for telephonic
cardiopulmonary resuscitation selected by the medical director of an emergency medical
dispatch center.” See supra note 1.

                                             21
nonetheless cognizable under the MPLA because they fall within the definition of “medical

professional liability,” which

              means 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); see also Scott, 246 W. Va. at 193, 866 S.E.2d at 359 (“As stated

above, ‘medical professional liability’ no longer encompasses only health care services

rendered or that should have been rendered. It also includes ‘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.’”).

              Again, the petitioner’s argument has surface appeal because under both the

statute and this Court’s reasoning in Scott, it is fair to characterize the respondents’ alleged

failure to dispatch an ambulance as an act or omission falling within the definition of

“medical professional liability.” However, this Court has unequivocally held that this is

not sufficient to bring a case within the ambit of the MPLA, because

               [t]he 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.

                                              22
Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. W. Va. Div. of Corr. & Rehab. v. Ferguson, 248 W. Va. 471, 889

S.E.2d 44 (2023); see also Syl. Pt. 4, in part, State ex rel. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.

v. Thompson, 248 W. Va. 352, 888 S.E.2d 852 (2023) (“Where the alleged tortious acts or

omissions are committed by a health care provider within the context of the rendering of

‘health care’ as defined by W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(e) (2006) (Supp. 2007), the [MPLA]

applies regardless of how the claims have been pled.”) (emphasis added and citation

omitted). In this regard, we held in Ferguson that the West Virginia Division of Correction

& Rehabilitation (“WVDCR”) could not be deemed a “health care provider” because

              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 § 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)].”).

Ferguson, 248 W. Va. at __, 889 S.E.2d at 53 (emphasis added). We also noted that

extending the MPLA to include individuals or entities other than those specifically

designated by the Legislature would be inconsistent with the statute’s purpose, which was

“to remedy what [the Legislature] perceived as a crisis in mounting lawsuits against

professional health care providers and health care facilities that led to difficulty in

                                             23
procuring reasonable liability insurance for the medical community.” 13 Id. (emphasis

added).

              In summary, we conclude that the petitioner’s claims do not fall within the

otherwise broad ambit of the MPLA 14 because no amount of linguistic acrobatics can turn

these respondents, Summers County Commission d/b/a Summers County Office of

Emergency Management and Carmen Cales, into “health care providers” as defined in

West Virginia Code section 55-7B-2(g). See Ferguson, 248 W. Va. at __, 889 S.E.2d at 46,

Syl. Pt. 5.

                                            C.

       13
          We note that the case of Damron v. Primecare Medical of West Virginia, Inc.,
No. 20-0862, 2022 WL 2078178 (W. Va. June 9, 2022) (memorandum decision), is not to
the contrary. In Damron, the defendant Primecare Medical was unquestionably a health
care provider; the question before this Court was whether the inmate plaintiff could “plead
himself out” of the MPLA – whose pre-suit requirements he had not met – by
characterizing his cause of action as a claim of deliberate indifference rather than a claim
of medical negligence. We held that he could not, because the fact that the alleged medical
negligence occurred in a regional jail did not alter the essential nature of the claim. In
contrast, the issue in Ferguson was whether the defendant WVDCR was a health care
provider or a health care facility. Once this Court determined that it was not, then even if
the plaintiff’s cause of action could be characterized as one of medical negligence, that
fact, standing alone, did not bring the claims within the ambit of the MPLA. See Ferguson,
248 W. Va. at ____, 889 S.E.2d at 46, Syl. Pt. 5.

        “While the reach of the MPLA may indeed be broad, it is not limitless.”
       14

Thompson, 248 W. Va. at __, 888 S.E.2d at 866 (Wooton, J., dissenting).

                                            24
             Finally, we turn to the respondents’ argument that even though the

petitioner’s claims are cognizable under the Tort Claims Act (absent its minority tolling

provision discussed supra), it is this State’s wrongful death statute, West Virginia Code

section 55-7-6(d), which contains the applicable statute of limitations. In this regard, the

respondents urge this Court to recognize what they deem to be the rationale of Williams v.

CMO Management, LLC, 239 W. Va. 530, 803 S.E.2d 500 (2016), where we held that

                     [t]he statute of limitations for a personal injury claim
              brought under the authority of W. Va. Code § 55-7-8a(c)(1959)
              (Repl. Vol. 2008) is tolled during the period of a mental
              disability as defined by W. Va. Code § 55-2-15 (1923) (Repl.
              Vol. 2008). In the event the injured person dies before the
              mental disability ends, the statute of limitations begins to run
              on the date of the injured person’s death.

Id. at 530, 803 S.E.2d at 501, Syl. Pt. 3, in part; see also State ex rel. Morgantown

Operating Co., LLC v. Gaujot, 245 W. Va. 415, 429, 859 S.E.2d 358, 372 (2021)

(determining that “[a]fter thorough analysis, we are left with the same conclusion reached

in Miller [v. Romero, 186 W. Va. 523, 413 S.E.2d 178 (1991, overruled on other grounds

by Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W. Va. 682, 558 S.E.2d 681 (2001)] that the Legislature

intended the Wrongful Death Act statute of limitations to apply to causes of action for

death sounding in medical negligence, and the MPLA to apply to causes of action for

personal injury sounding in medical negligence.). 15

       15
          Morgantown Operating was an action alleging that the decedent’s death was the
result of medical negligence on the part of the defendant nursing home. Morgantown
Operating Co., 245 W. Va. at 418, 859 S.E.2d at 361. The MPLA requires actions arising
from the negligence of a nursing home to be brought within one year, whereas the wrongful

                                            25
              We find it unnecessary to resolve this issue in the instant case because it

would not in any way affect our disposition of the matter; the Tort Claims Act and the

wrongful death statute both contain a two-year statute of limitations, and neither contains

a statutory prohibition to application of the discovery rule. See Syl. Pt. 2, Dunn v. Rockwell,

225 W. Va. 43, 689 S.E.2d 255 (2009) (“The ‘discovery rule’ is generally applicable to all

torts, unless there is a clear statutory prohibition to its application.”). Thus, we turn to the

final, and dispositive, question in this case: whether the circuit court erred in holding that

the discovery rule did not apply because the petitioner knew she hadn’t been met by an

ambulance while she was on her way to the hospital, and thus the statute of limitations was

triggered the moment “[the petitioner] became aware of Jasper’s passing.”

              This Court has held that the determination of whether the discovery rule

applies to a statute of limitations requires a five-part inquiry by the trial judge:

                     A five-step analysis should be applied to determine
              whether a cause of action is time-barred. First, the court should
              identify the applicable statute of limitation for each cause of
              action. Second, the court (or, if questions of material fact exist,
              the jury) should identify when the requisite elements of the
              cause of action occurred. Third, the discovery rule should be

death statute requires actions arising from negligence on the part of any person or entity to
be brought within two years. In 2022, the Legislature amended West Virginia Code section
55-7B-4(b) to clarify and codify its intent that the one-year statute of limitations for
medical negligence claims against nursing homes applies both to claims for injuries and
claims for death.

                                              26
              applied to determine when the statute of limitation began to run
              by determining when the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of
              reasonable diligence should have known, of the elements of a
              possible cause of action, as set forth in Syllabus Point 4 of
              Gaither v. City Hosp., Inc., 199 W.Va. 706, 487 S.E.2d 901
              (1997). Fourth, if the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of
              the discovery rule, then determine whether the defendant
              fraudulently concealed facts that prevented the plaintiff from
              discovering or pursuing the cause of action. Whenever a
              plaintiff is able to show that the defendant fraudulently
              concealed facts which prevented the plaintiff from discovering
              or pursuing the potential cause of action, the statute of
              limitation is tolled. And fifth, the court or the jury should
              determine if the statute of limitation period was arrested by
              some other tolling doctrine. Only the first step is purely a
              question of law; the resolution of steps two through five will
              generally involve questions of material fact that will need to be
              resolved by the trier of fact.

Syl. Pt. 5, Dunn v. Rockwell, 225 W. Va. 43, 689 S.E.2d 255 (2009) (emphasis added); see

also E.K. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health, No. 16-0773, 2017 WL 5153221, at *6-7 (W. Va. Nov.

7, 2017) (memorandum decision) (“Because statute of limitations issues are often fact-

determinative, a circuit court should hesitate to dismiss a complaint on this ground based

solely on the face of the complaint. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C.Cir.

1996). ‘A statute of limitations analysis is generally riddled with questions of fact which

the Defendants must establish in order to bar Plaintiffs’ claims. Because of this fact-

intensive burden, affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations are generally not

resolved with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).’ Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am.,

Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 323, 353–54 (D. Vt. 2010) (footnote and citation omitted).

Accordingly, ‘[u]nless the complaint alleges facts that create an ironclad defense, a

                                             27
limitations argument must await factual development.’ Foss v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

394 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2005).”).

              In the instant case, the circuit court failed to appreciate that although the

petitioner knew she hadn’t been met by an ambulance on her way to the hospital, she

alleges that at the time of baby Jasper’s death she did not know, and could not reasonably

have known, that these respondents had anything to do with it. To the contrary, the

petitioner alleges that at the time her telephone conversation with respondent Cales ended,

respondent Cales had still not been able to reach EMS. In short, although the petitioner

may have been aware of facts suggesting that ambulance driver Jacob Woodrum, an

employee of EMS, had been negligent, 16 she was not aware of any facts suggesting that

she had a claim of negligence against either respondent Emergency Management or

respondent Cales. As we held in syllabus point four of Mack-Evans v. Hilltop Healthcare

Center, Inc., 226 W. Va. 257, 700 S.E.2d 317 (2010):

              “‘In a wrongful death action, under the discovery rule, the
              statute of limitation contained in W. Va. Code, 55-7-6(d)
              [1992] begins to run when the decedent’s representative knows
              or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know (1) that
              the decedent has died; (2) that the death was the result of a
              wrongful act, neglect, or default; (3) the identity of the person
              or entity who owed the decedent a duty to act with due care and
              who may have engaged in conduct that breached that duty; and
              (4) that the wrongful act, neglect or default of that person or
              entity has a causal relation to the decedent’s death.’ Syllabus

       16
         Defendant Woodrum has not alleged that the petitioner’s claims against him are
barred by any statute of limitations, and therefore this question is moot as to him.

                                             28
              point 8, Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W.Va. 682, 558 S.E.2d 681
              (2001).”

(Emphasis added).

              On the record as it currently stands, there are unresolved questions of fact as

to when the petitioner knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known,

that any acts or omissions on the part of the respondents had a causal relationship to the

death of baby Jasper. We conclude that the circuit court erred in granting the respondents’

Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the ground that the statute of limitations had run on the petitioner’s

claims; and accordingly, the court’s dismissal order is reversed, and this case is remanded

for further proceedings, including discovery proceedings, consistent with this opinion.

                                      IV. Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s decision that the minority

tolling provision of West Virginia Code section 29-12A-6(b) does not apply to this case;

but we reverse the court’s grant of the respondents’ motion to dismiss and remand for

further factual development of the respondents’ statute of limitations defense and for such

further proceedings deemed appropriate by the court.

                                                                        Affirmed, in part;
                                                                     Reversed in part; and
                                                                 Remanded with Directions.

                                             29