Chafin v. Boal
| Docket Number | 22-0010 |
| Decision Date | 07 November 2023 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER CHAFIN AND CHEAT LAKE URGENT CARE, PLLC, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners, v. BRIAN R. BOAL AND BOAL & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants Below, Respondents. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted: September 26, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County The Honorable Susan B. Tucker, Judge Civil Action No. 16-C-547 AFFIRMED
Jason E. Wingfield, Esq. Gianola, Barnum, Bechtel & Jecklin L.C. Morgantown, West Virginia Attorney for the Petitioners
Robert L. Hogan, Esq. Avrum Levicoff, Esq. The Levicoff Law Firm P.C. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Attorneys for the Respondents
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "The standard of review applicable to an appeal from a motion to alter or amend a judgment, made pursuant to W.Va R. Civ. P. 59(e), is the same standard that would apply to the underlying judgment upon which the motion is based and from which the appeal to this Court is filed." Syllabus point 1, Wickland v. American Travellers Life Insurance Co., 204 W.Va. 430, 513 S.E.2d 657 (1998).
2. "Summary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove." Syllabus point 4, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).
3. Syllabus point 4, Vanderpool v. Hunt, 241 W.Va. 254, 823 S.E.2d 526 (2019).
Petitioners Christopher Chafin, M.D. and Cheat Lake Urgent Care, PLLC ("CLUC") (collectively "the Chafin Petitioners" or "Petitioners") appeal the December 9, 2021 order of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County denying their Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the July 30, 2021 order granting partial summary judgment[1] to Brian Boal and Boal & Associates, P.C. (collectively "the Boal Respondents" or "Respondents") in the underlying case asserting claims of accounting malpractice. The order at issue also denied Petitioners' Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an earlier circuit court order that excluded the report of the Chafin Petitioners' expert witness and precluded him from testifying at trial.
In this appeal, the Chafin Petitioners raise three assignments of error. First, Petitioners claim that the circuit court erred in striking their standard of care expert witness. They next argue that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the Boal Respondents when expert testimony on the standard of care was not required to prove all claims for relief they have asserted against Respondents. Finally, they contend that the circuit court continuously abused its discretion and displayed obvious signs of prejudice towards Petitioners. We find no error and affirm the circuit court.
The Chafin Petitioners' complaint contains the following factual allegations. Dr. Chafin, Dr. David Anderson, and a third individual owned CLUC, a medical practice in Monongalia County, West Virginia. CLUC retained the Boal Respondents "to provide accounting and tax services to the practice"; Dr. Chafin also retained the Boal Respondents for personal accounting and tax services. These accounting and tax services included: (1) handling payroll for CLUC, (2) preparing profit and loss statements, (3) preparing tax forms, (4) arranging and handling the withholding of salary to pay federal and state taxes, and (5) filing and paying taxes. Despite the Boal Respondents provision of these services, in 2013, Dr. Anderson, "was accused of embezzling upwards of $500,000 from [CLUC]." Also, while the Boal Respondents withheld money from Dr. Chafin's paycheck, they did not pay the withheld money to the appropriate tax agencies.
Dr. Chafin initiated the underlying action in October 2016 by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County[2] against the Boal Respondents regarding the accounting services they had provided.[3] Shortly thereafter, Dr. Chafin filed an amended complaint, and subsequently, the circuit court granted leave for Dr. Chafin to file a second amended complaint that added CLUC as a plaintiff.[4] Relevant to this appeal, the second amended complaint contained the following five counts against the Boal Respondents: (1) accounting malpractice, (2) breach of the CLUC contract,[5] (3) breach of the Chafin contract, (4) negligence, and (5) negligent misrepresentation. It further alleged a sixth count against Mr. Boal: breach of his fiduciary duty. Each of these counts is premised on the same failure to provide appropriate accounting and tax services to the Chafin Petitioners, and all counts, except for breach of fiduciary duty, explicitly contend that the Boal Respondents deviated from acceptable standards of care for accounting professionals.
Throughout the underlying proceedings, the parties engaged in written discovery.[6] The Boal Respondents served interrogatories on Dr. Chafin in May 2017.[7] Relevant to this appeal, Interrogatory No. 10 requested as follows:
Dr. Chafin initially responded with a litany of objections and asserted that the request was "premature and will be responded to in accordance with the [c]ourt's Scheduling Order." He subsequently provided amended responses reiterating the same objections.
On December 6, 2018, the circuit court entered its first scheduling order, setting the deadline for the Chafin Petitioners to disclose expert witnesses on May 1, 2019. Petitioners timely served their disclosure, naming Charles J. Russo, who was expected to testify to "the standard of care accounting professionals owe to [a] client and industry practices[,]"[8] and provided his curriculum vitae. Counsel for the Boal Respondents corresponded with the Chafin Petitioners' counsel via e-mail and telephone messages requesting additional information regarding the expert disclosures. When Respondents' counsel did not receive any supplementation, the Boal Respondents filed a motion to compel answers to their first set of interrogatories. Pertinent to this appeal, the Boal Respondents argued that they had requested detailed expert opinions in May 2017 and that as of June 2019 they still had not received a full response to their interrogatory.[9] Neither Dr. Chafin nor the Chafin Petitioners filed a response. Days later, the circuit court entered an amended scheduling order, setting the deadline for the Chafin Petitioners to "supplement trial experts' opinions" on August 9, 2019, and moving the trial date to March 2020.[10]
On February 5, 2020, the Boal Respondents filed a motion in limine to preclude Mr. Russo from testifying as a standard of care expert, as they had not received any of the requested supplemental information. The Boal Respondents argued that the Chafin Petitioners (1) ignored the requirements of the circuit court's scheduling orders by failing to file a disclosure which "delineate[d] the scope and substance of" their experts' opinions, including Mr. Russo, and (2) failed to appropriately and timely respond to written discovery requesting the same detailed expert witness information. They further contended that the Chafin Petitioners' failure to timely and properly disclose their expert witness' opinions severely prejudiced them. Petitioners argued in response that the delay in providing the expert's reports was due to their lack of resources "necessary to hire the proper experts and to keep them working[,]" and not timely receiving documents, including from Respondents, that were necessary to produce an expert opinion report.
The Boal Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, and on March 11, 2020, they filed a brief in support of their motion arguing that because the Chafin Petitioners had failed to properly disclose their expert's opinions, they could not prove the standard of care owed by the Boal Respondents and whether there was a deviation from it.[11] On June 8, 2020, the Chafin Petitioners filed Mr. Russo's expert witness report. In response, the Boal Respondents filed a motion to strike the report and preclude Mr. Russo from testifying at trial, contending that the report was untimely, contained conclusory statements, and failed to provide the substance of Mr. Russo's opinions.
The circuit court held a hearing on August 3, 2020, and entered an order the following day granting the Boal Respondents' motion to strike Mr. Russo's report and preclude him from testifying at trial.[12] Following the court's order striking the Chafin Petitioners' only expert witness as to the standard of care, the Boal Respondents filed an amended motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial