Court Opinion

ID: 9385090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 20:10:04.039959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.637885
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                   April 5, 2023
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

Gregory S. Moore, O.D.,
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 22-0187 (Kanawha County 16-C-1817)

Lawrence M. Minardi, M.D., individually, and
Minardi Eye Center, Inc., a West Virginia
Corporation,
Defendants Below, Respondents

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Gregory S. Moore, O.D. (“Dr. Moore”) appeals the circuit court’s order granting
summary judgment to Respondents Lawrence M. Minardi, M.D. (“Dr. Minardi”) and Minardi Eye
Center, Inc. on the basis that the complaint is barred under the applicable statute of limitations.1
Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision
affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.

        Dr. Moore, a board-certified optometrist, was the managing member and sole owner of
West Virginia Laser Eye Center, LLC (“WVLEC”). According to Dr. Moore’s complaint, this
business was formed to allow him to lawfully associate with and manage ophthalmologists to
perform LASIK and cataract surgeries. Dr. Minardi is an ophthalmologist and is the owner of
Minardi Eye Center, Inc. At all relevant times, respondents treated patients with eye diseases and
routinely performed LASIK and cataract surgeries. Following a change in West Virginia law that
expanded the scope of permissive optometric practice in 2010, which Dr. Minardi opposed, Dr.
Minardi submitted complaints to the West Virginia Board of Medicine (“WVBOM”) against Dr.
Moore and two ophthalmologists associated with WVLEC—both prior to 2013. The WVBOM did
not find any wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Moore or the associated ophthalmologists so no actions
were taken against them by the WVBOM. In 2013 and 2015, Dr. Minardi authored screening
certificates of merit against Dr. Moore, the WVLEC, and/or ophthalmologists associated with
WVLEC. The certificate completed in 2013 was part of litigation that was ultimately dismissed by
a circuit court. The certificate completed in 2015 related to a patient who did not file suit against
Dr. Moore or those associated with him. Also in 2015, Dr. Minardi sent a letter to WVBOM

       1
       Petitioner is represented by Robert J. D’Anniballe, Jr. and Anthony S. Caliguire, and
respondents are represented by Edward C. Martin, Jason A. Proctor, and Kiersan S. Lockard.

                                                 1
regarding Dr. Moore in response to a complaint filed by Dr. Moore against Dr. Minardi.

         Dr. Moore filed suit against respondents on December 6, 2016, alleging that respondents
tortiously interfered with business relations and expectancies and the pursuit of occupation. Key
to Dr. Moore’s claim are his professional relationships and affiliations with several
ophthalmologists, primarily Dr. Darrell Reisner. Dr. Reisner entered into an oral agreement with
WVLEC in 2008 and a written agreement for practice management services in 2009. Under the
terms of that agreement, it was to end in 2012. However, Dr. Reisner continued performing
surgeries at WVLEC through at least part of 2013. Dr. Moore claimed Dr. Reisner ceased his
affiliation with WVLEC due to Dr. Minardi’s filing of complaints against Dr. Moore and those
affiliated with WVLEC, including Dr. Reisner. Dr. Moore spoke to another ophthalmologist about
performing surgeries at WVLEC, but that doctor chose not to do so. 2 Dr. Moore generally alleged
that WVLEC and a later-opened business suffered due to Dr. Minardi’s actions in filing these
complaints and authoring the screening certificates of merit. The circuit court found that the two-
year statute of limitations set forth in West Virginia Code § 55-2-12 applied to Dr. Moore’s claims
and that the claims are time-barred.

       On appeal, Dr. Moore asserts that the circuit court erroneously granted respondents’ motion
for summary judgment, arguing that the suit was timely filed because respondents were
committing a continuous tort. As this Court has consistently stated, “‘A circuit court’s entry of
summary judgment is reviewed de novo.’ Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451
S.E.2d 755 (1994).” Syl. Pt. 1, Goodman v. Auton, -- W. Va. --, 880 S.E.2d 57 (2022).

       A five-step analysis controls the question of whether Dr. Moore’s tortious interference
claim against Dr. Minardi 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 five will generally

       2
          In addition, Dr. Moore purchased the practice of Dr. Tully Roisman in 2009, and Dr.
Roisman continued with the practice through a transition period. However, that relationship
resulted in Dr. Roisman filing suit against Dr. Moore and/or WVLEC for nonpayment of rent under
their agreement. Thus, it appears that that relationship ended for reasons unrelated to respondents.
                                                   2
       involve questions of material fact that will need to be resolved by the trier of fact.

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

        Regarding step one, it is undisputed that Dr. Moore’s claims are subject to a two-year
statute of limitation. W. Va. Code § 55-2-12. Step two requires this Court to assess when the
elements of Mr. Moore’s claim for tortious interference occurred. The elements of a claim of
tortious interference are:

       (1) existence of a contractual or business relationship or expectancy; (2) an
       intentional act of interference by a party outside that relationship or expectancy; (3)
       proof that the interference caused the harm sustained; and (4) damages. If a plaintiff
       makes a prima facie case, a defendant may prove justification or privilege,
       affirmative defenses. Defendants are not liable for interference that is negligent
       rather than intentional, or if they show defenses of legitimate competition between
       plaintiff and themselves, their financial interest in the induced party’s business,
       their responsibility for another’s welfare, their intention to influence another’s
       business policies in which they have an interest, their giving of honest, truthful
       requested advice, or other factors that show the interference was proper.” Syl. pt.
       2, Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co., 173 W.Va. 210, 314 S.E.2d 166
       (1983).

Syl. Pt. 4, Garrison v. Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hosp. Ass’n, 190 W. Va. 214, 438 S.E.2d 6
(1993).

         Comparing the facts adduced at summary judgment to those elements, we see that the
circuit court did not err when it concluded that the elements of Mr. Moore’s claim for tortious
interference occurred (if at all) before January of 2014. While Dr. Moore points to the 2015
screening certificate of merit in support of his argument that respondents’ tortious conduct
continued through 2015, no litigation was filed related to the patient who was the subject of that
certificate. Further, the 2015 certificate had no bearing on Dr. Reisner’s decision to end his
affiliation with Dr. Moore and WVLEC in 2013. Therefore, it is unclear how Dr. Moore or his
business was harmed by this certificate.

         As stated above, Dr. Moore’s primary theory is that Dr. Minardi’s actions caused Dr. Reiser
to disassociate from WVLEC. While Dr. Moore blames Dr. Minardi for Dr. Reisner’s decision to
discontinue his professional affiliation with Dr. Moore and WVLEC, Dr. Moore ignores Dr.
Reisner’s deposition testimony that WVLEC’s patient volume declined for other reasons as well.
Specifically, Dr. Reisner testified that some referring doctors indicated they would not refer all of
their patients to WVLEC due to their displeasure with the scant amount of time Dr. Reisner spent
at WVLEC, as he did not reside in West Virginia and was at WVLEC approximately five to seven
days per month. According to Dr. Reisner, those referring doctors also expressed concern about
Dr. Minardi’s WVBOM complaints against Dr. Moore and Dr. Reisner. Dr. Reisner further
testified that while Dr. Minardi’s complaints contributed to his decision to cease practicing at
WVLEC, that decision was also due to the growth of his practice in Virginia, which required him
to be present there. Dr. Reisner confirmed that he made the decision to leave in 2013, he

                                                 3
implemented the decision in 2013, and he had not spoken to Dr. Moore about returning at any
point after 2013.

        In addition, Dr. Minardi’s December of 2015 letter to the WVBOM was in response to a
complaint filed by Dr. Moore against Dr. Minardi and does not appear to contain allegations
against Dr. Moore that Dr. Minardi had not made before the end of 2013, under the facts of this
case, Dr. Moore cannot rely upon that letter to extend the statute of limitations. Thus, Dr. Moore
knew or should have known no later than the end of 2013 that the statute of limitations had begun
to run on his tortious interference claims against respondents. Further, with regard to the fourth
Dunn factor, fraudulent concealment, Dr. Moore does not allege that respondents concealed facts
related to his claims. Finally, Dr. Moore does not contend that the statute of limitation period was
tolled.

         We find no merit to Dr. Moore’s assertion that respondents committed a continuing tort.
“Where a tort involves a continuing or repeated injury, the cause of action accrues at and the statute
of limitations begins to run from the date of the last injury or when the tortious overt acts or
omissions cease.” Syl. Pt. 11, Graham v. Beverage, 211 W. Va. 466, 566 S.E.2d 603 (2002). As
set forth above, if respondents committed any tortious conduct, that conduct occurred prior to the
end of 2013. Additionally, as we recently reiterated, “‘the concept of a continuing tort requires the
showing of repetitious, wrongful conduct . . . [m]oreover a wrongful act with consequential
damages is not a continuing tort.’ Ricottilli v. Summersville Mem. Hosp., 188 W. Va. 674, 677,
425 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1992).” Reilley v. Bd. of Educ. of Cnty. of Marshall, 246 W. Va. 531, 540,
874 S.E.2d 333, 342 (2022) (emphasis added). As set forth herein, the actual conduct complained
of occurred prior to the end of 2013, with the exception of preparation of the 2015 screening
certificate of merit (which was not followed by a lawsuit) and transmission of the 2015 letter
(which did not contain allegations against Dr. Moore that Dr. Minardi had not made before the end
of 2013). Consequently, Dr. Moore has not established that the 2015 conduct was wrongful such
that it would trigger the continuing tort doctrine. Thus, for the reasons set forth herein, we find that
the circuit court did not err in determining that Dr. Moore’s claims were time-barred and granting
respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 5, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                                   4