Alcoy v. Valley Nursing Homes, Inc., Record No. 051701.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2006
• Docket Number: Record No. 051701.
• Citation: 630 S.E.2d 301
• Parties: Bennie G. ALCOY, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Delfina G. Alcoy, Deceased v. VALLEY NURSING HOMES, INC.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

630 S.E.2d 301

Bennie G. ALCOY, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Delfina G. Alcoy, Deceased v. VALLEY NURSING HOMES, INC.

Record No. 051701.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

June 8, 2006.

L. Steven Emmert (Paul A. Samakow; Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, Virginia Beach, on briefs), for appellant.

Juliane C. Miller (Douglas M. Coleman; Carter & Coleman, Alexandria on brief), for appellee.

Amici Curiae: The Virginia Health Care Association (Gerald C. Canaan, II, Glen Allen; Hillary T. Taylor, Fairfax, on brief), in support of appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

OPINION BY Justice BARBARAMILANO KEENAN.

In this appeal, we consider whether causes of action for negligence and sexual assault and battery, based on the failure of nursing home personnel to ensure the safety of one of their residents, are subject to the provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act, Code §§ 8.01-581.1 through -581.20:1 (the Act).

In 2002, Delfina G. Alcoy was 79 years old when she suffered a stroke that rendered her physically helpless, unable to communicate verbally, and incapable of making decisions. After treatment at a local hospital, Alcoy was admitted to Woodbine Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center (Woodbine), a nursing home facility operated by Valley Nursing Homes, Inc. (Valley) in Alexandria.

Four days after being admitted to Woodbine, Alcoy was sexually assaulted. Among other injuries, she suffered vaginal bleeding and tearing. Her assailant was never identified. Alcoy died about eight months after the assault.

In 2004, Bennie G. Alcoy, Jr., who served as administrator of Alcoy's estate (the administrator), filed an amended motion for judgment in the circuit court against Valley alleging, among other things, negligence, sexual assault, and battery. In his pleadings, the administrator sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

Valley filed a motion in limine, contending that the administrator's claims were governed by the Act. Valley argued that any torts that may have been committed against Alcoy during her confinement at Woodbine constituted "malpractice," as defined in Code § 8.01-581.1. On this basis, Valley asked that the evidence in the case be limited to the issue whether Valley "committed malpractice defined as a breach of the standard of care, which proximately caused damages to Mrs. Alcoy."

The administrator responded that the Act's provisions did not apply because Valley's duty to Alcoy arose from her status as a resident at the Woodbine facility, not from any medical treatment or care she received or should have received at Woodbine. The administrator contended that Valley's failure to protect Alcoy from sexual assault was not a medical omission within the Act but was the result of simple negligence.

The circuit court granted Valley's motion in limine, holding that the administrator's claims were within the scope of the Act. Because the administrator's witnesses were not qualified to give expert medical testimony on the standard of care as required by Code § 8.01-581.20 in the Act, Valley moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.

The administrator argues that his claims arose from Valley's failure to protect Alcoy from physical harm and were unrelated to her medical care. He contends that the circuit court's interpretations of the Act's terms "health care" and "malpractice" are overbroad and would encompass numerous torts not involving medical care, leading to absurd results. Noting that Code § 8.01-581.20 addresses the "clinical practice" of witnesses providing expert testimony in cases subject to the Act, the administrator asserts that the General Assembly intended that the Act cover only medical acts and omissions, not torts involving building security or hiring practices.

In response, Valley argues that any duty it had to protect Alcoy arose from the patient-health care provider relationship and therefore is subject to the provisions of the Act. Valley asserts that all torts committed by health care providers on their premises are covered by the Act because Code § 8.01-581.1 addresses "professional services" as well as "health care." Valley also contends that the General Assembly has endorsed an expansive definition of medical malpractice, as shown by a recent statutory amendment to Code § 8.01-581.1 that added breach of contract claims for personal injury and wrongful death to the statutory definition of "malpractice." We disagree with Valley's arguments.

The issue before us involves a question of law. Therefore, we review the record de novo on appeal. Wilby v. Gostel, 265 Va. 437, 440, 578 S.E.2d 796, 798 (2003); Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. RBMW, Inc., 262 Va. 502, 514, 551 S.E.2d 313, 319 (2001).

Under basic rules of statutory construction, we consider the language of a statute to determine the General Assembly's intent from the plain and natural meaning of the words used. Britt Constr., Inc. v. Magazzine Clean, LLC, 271 Va. 58, 62, 623 S.E.2d 886, 888 (2006); West Lewinsville Heights Citizens Ass'n v. Board of Supervisors, 270 Va. 259, 265, 618 S.E.2d 311, 314 (2005); Mozley v. Prestwould Bd. of Dirs., 264 Va. 549, 554, 570 S.E.2d 817, 820 (2002). When the language of a statute is unambiguous, we are bound by the plain meaning of that language. Williams v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 268, 271, 576 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2003); Woods v. Mendez, 265 Va. 68, 74-75, 574 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2003); Industrial Dev. Auth. v. Board of Supervisors, 263 Va. 349, 353, 559 S.E.2d 621, 623 (2002). Thus, when the General Assembly has used words of a plain and definite import, courts cannot assign them a construction that would amount to holding that the General Assembly meant something other than that which it actually expressed. Britt Constr., Inc., 271 Va. at 62-63, 623 S.E.2d at 888; Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 423, 439, 621 S.E.2d 78, 87 (2005); Williams, 265 Va. at 271, 576 S.E.2d at 470.

The statutory language at issue is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, as in previous decisions involving the scope of the Act, we will apply the plain meaning of the Act's language to the facts presented. See Hagan v. Antonio, 240 Va. 347, 350, 397 S.E.2d 810, 811 (1990); Gonzalez v. Fairfax Hosp. Sys., 239 Va. 307, 310, 389 S.E.2d 458, 459 (1990); Glisson v. Loxley, 235 Va. 62, 67, 366 S.E.2d 68, 71 (1988).

The portions of the Act defining the terms "malpractice" and "health care" are central to the issue before us. The term "malpractice" is defined in Code § 8.01-581.1 as "any tort action or breach of contract action for personal injuries or wrongful death, based on health care or professional services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care provider, to a patient."

The term "health care," also defined in Code § 8.01-581.1...