Court Opinion

ID: 9891325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 12:12:22.206438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:00.822981
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               October 18, 2023
                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                               SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

Herbert J. Thomas Memorial
Hospital Association, Inc., dba
Thomas Memorial Hospital and
THS Physician Partners, Inc.,
Petitioners Below, Petitioners

vs.) No. 22-0473 (Kanawha County 21-AA-66)

West Virginia Health Care Authority and
Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.,
Respondents Below, Respondents

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioners Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., dba Thomas Memorial
Hospital, and THS Physician Partners, Inc. (collectively, “Thomas”), appeal the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County’s May 23, 2022, order dismissing as moot their petition for judicial review of
the decision of the Office of Judges (“OOJ”) that affirmed Respondent West Virginia Health Care
Authority’s (“HCA”) determination that Respondent Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.’s,
(“CAMC”) proposed acquisition of an existing physician practice (the “proposed acquisition”) was
not subject to certificate of need review. 1 Upon our review, finding no substantial question of law
and no prejudicial error, 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(c).

        CAMC requested a determination from HCA that the proposed acquisition was not subject
to certificate of need review. Thomas requested affected person status and intervened to oppose
CAMC’s request. HCA ultimately determined that the proposed acquisition was not subject to
certificate of need review. Thomas sought review by the OOJ of the HCA’s decision, and the OOJ
affirmed. Thomas then filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court, and the underlying
decisions were stayed.

        During the pendency of the proceedings before the circuit court, CAMC advised the court
that it no longer intended to proceed with the proposed acquisition, and it moved to dismiss
Thomas’s petition for judicial review as moot. Thomas opposed dismissal, arguing, among other
things, that CAMC’s proposed dismissal order did not vacate the rulings of the HCA and OOJ.

       1
        Thomas is represented by Alaina N. Crislip and Albert F. Sebok. CAMC is represented
by Thomas G. Casto, Webster J. Arceneaux III, and Hannah Wright; and HCA appears by Attorney
General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Heather A. Connolly.
                                                 1
The court granted CAMC’s motion, finding that Thomas’s petition was moot, but it did not vacate
the decisions of the HCA or OOJ. Thomas now appeals the court’s May 23, 2022, dismissal order,
our review of which is de novo. See Allegheny Country Farms, Inc. v. Huffman, 237 W. Va. 355,
787 S.E.2d 626 (2016) (providing for a de novo standard of review of a circuit court’s order
dismissing an action as moot).

        In its lone assignment of error, Thomas argues that the circuit court erred in failing to vacate
the decisions of the HCA and OOJ—an action Thomas maintains the court was “duty bound” to
take. The only decision of this Court cited in support of Thomas’s argument is West Virginia
Education Ass’n v. Consolidated Public Retirement Board, 194 W. Va. 501, 460 S.E.2d 747
(1995). In particular, Thomas points to footnote thirty-seven of that decision, which states, “When
a case is considered moot, the proper course for a court is to vacate and remand with directions to
dismiss the order or opinion entered.” Id. at 515 n.37, 460 S.E.2d at 761 n.37 (citing United States
v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)).

        We determine that there is no merit to Thomas’s argument. It is well settled that points of
law are articulated in syllabus points, not footnotes. Syl. Pt. 13, State ex rel. Med. Assurance of W.
Va.., Inc. v. Recht, 213 W. Va. 457, 583 S.E.2d 80 (2003) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Walker v.
Doe, 210 W. Va. 490, 558 S.E.2d 290 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. McKinley,
234 W. Va. 143, 764 S.E.2d 303 (2014)) (“[N]ew points of law . . . will be articulated through
syllabus points as required by our state constitution.”). And “language in a footnote generally
should be considered obiter dicta, which, by definition, is language ‘unnecessary to the decision
in the case and therefore not precedential.’” Id. at 472, 583 S.E.2d at 94 (quoting dictum, Black’s
Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999)). Moreover, a cursory review of this Court’s opinions dismissing
various appeals as moot without vacating the underlying orders or judgments undermines
Thomas’s claim of error. See, e.g., City of Martinsburg v. Cnty. Council of Berkeley Cnty., --- W.
Va. ---, 880 S.E.2d 42 (2022); Velogol v. City of Weirton, 212 W. Va. 687, 575 S.E.2d 297 (2002);
Gallery v. W. Va. Secondary Schs. Activities Comm’n, 205 W. Va. 364, 518 S.E.2d 368 (1999).
Too, Munsingwear itself—the case cited by this Court in the footnote relied upon by Thomas—
cited cases that deviated from the practice. 340 U.S. at 39 n.2. Consequently, we find that Thomas
has simply failed to carry its burden of demonstrating error below. See Syl. Pt. 5, in part, Morgan
v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966) (“An appellant must carry the burden of showing
error in the judgment of which he complains.”).

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
                                                                                             Affirmed.

ISSUED: October 18, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                   2