STATE EX REL. CHARLES TOWN HOSP. v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 09 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. 29770.,29770.
• Citation: 556 S.E.2d 85,210 W.Va. 118
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. the CHARLES TOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL, dba Jefferson Memorial Hospital, and the Medical Staff of the Charles Town General Hospital, dba Jefferson Memorial Hospital, Petitioners, v. The Honorable David H. SANDERS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, Anna Marie Chaffins, and Thomas Chaffins, Jr., Respondents.

556 S.E.2d 85

210 W.Va. 118

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. the CHARLES TOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL, dba Jefferson Memorial Hospital, and the Medical Staff of the Charles Town General Hospital, dba Jefferson Memorial Hospital, Petitioners, v. The Honorable David H. SANDERS, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, Anna Marie Chaffins, and Thomas Chaffins, Jr., Respondents.

No. 29770.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted September 5, 2001.

Decided November 9, 2001.

P. Gregory Haddad, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Morgantown, Ancil G. Ramey, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Charleston, for the Petitioners.

D. Michael Burke, Esq., Burke, Schultz and Harman, Martinsburg, Barry J. Nace, Esq., Paulson & Nace, Washington, District of Columbia, for the Respondents.

Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Esq., Wilson, Frame, Benninger & Metheney, PLLC, Morgantown, for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association. DAVIS, Justice.

The petitioners herein, the Charles Town General Hospital, doing business as Jefferson Memorial Hospital, and the Medical Staff thereof [hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Hospital" or "Jefferson Memorial Hospital"], request this Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Berkeley County from enforcing its order entered March 23, 2001. By that order, the circuit court, ruling in favor of the respondents herein, Anna Marie Chaffins [hereinafter referred to as "Mrs. Chaffins"] and her husband, Thomas Chaffins, Jr. [hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Chaffins"], determined that certain documents held by the Hospital and sought by the Chaffins in their underlying medical malpractice lawsuit were discoverable. In this petition for writ of prohibition, the Hospital claims that the circuit court improperly found that these documents were not protected by the privilege contained in W. Va.Code § 30-3C-3 (1980) (Repl.Vol. 1998) of the West Virginia Health Care Peer Review Organization Protection Act, W. Va. Code § 30-3C-1, et seq. Upon a review of the parties' arguments, the record of documents at issue in this proceeding, and the pertinent authorities, we find that the writ requested by the respondents should be granted as moulded. To the extent that the contested documents are available from original sources extraneous to the medical credentialing process, they are not privileged and are subject to discovery. However, those documents, such as applications for staff privileges, that were generated as part and parcel of the credentialing process are protected by the health care peer review privilege pursuant to the terms of W. Va. Code § 30-3C-3. In light of these rulings, we remand this matter to the Circuit Court of Berkeley County for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August, 1997, Mrs. Chaffins saw her personal physician, Danine A. Rydland, M.D. [hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Rydland"], for medical testing which revealed the presence of abnormal cells. Thereafter, in September, 1997, Dr. Rydland, who had surgical privileges at petitioner Jefferson Memorial Hospital, performed a laser cone biopsy and endocervical curettage upon Mrs. Chaffins at that facility. Mr. and Mrs. Chaffins allege that Mrs. Chaffins' subsequent medical problems were caused by Dr. Rydland's negligent performance of this procedure and ensuing treatment of Mrs. Chaffins, and that such acts resulted in severe injuries that ultimately required Mrs. Chaffins to undergo a hysterectomy in May, 1998, at the age of 25.

The Chaffins then filed a lawsuit against Dr. Rydland, alleging medical malpractice.¹ They also named Jefferson Memorial Hospital and its medical staff parties defendant to their civil action, claiming that the Hospital had been negligent in extending staff privileges, or credentials, to Dr. Rydland and later renewing such privileges.² During the proceedings below, the Chaffins sought discovery of various documents in the Hospital's possession concerning its decision to issue and renew Dr. Rydland's application for staff privileges in an attempt to establish whether the Hospital knew of various professional complaints that had been lodged against Dr. Rydland when it made these decisions. The Hospital claimed that such documents were protected from disclosure by the privilege applicable to health care peer review organizations contained in W. Va.Code § 30-3C-3 (1980) (Repl.Vol.1998).³ Upon the Chaffins' motion to compel discovery of these documents, the Circuit Court of Berkeley County performed an in camera review thereof, and, by order entered March 23, 2001, ruled as follows:

It appears to the Court that the issue is whether certain documents are privileged under the peer review [statute]. The Court in reviewing the documents ... stamped 000001-000137 finds that the only document that falls under the peer review privilege is document 000080. The Court finds that all other documents were generated as part of the credentialing process and are not privileged. The Court further finds that these documents are confidential in nature and certain protections should be afforded these documents.

Based upon the circuit court's determination that the majority of the Hospital's records at issue were not privileged and thus were subject to discovery by the Chaffins, the Hospital filed this petition for writ of prohibition and requests this Court to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its order.

II. STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT

This case comes before this Court upon a petition for writ of prohibition. Typically, relief of this nature is reserved for rather extraordinary cases. State ex rel. Suriano v. Gaughan, 198 W.Va. 339, 345, 480 S.E.2d 548, 554 (1996) ("Mandamus, prohibition and injunction against judges are drastic and extraordinary remedies.... As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes." (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Accordingly,

"`[a] writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a simple abuse of discretion by a trial court. It will only issue where the trial court has no jurisdiction or having such jurisdiction exceeds its legitimate powers. W. Va.Code, 53-1-1.' Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Peacher v. Sencindiver, 160 W.Va. 314, 233 S.E.2d 425 (1977)." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Kees v. Sanders, 192 W.Va. 602, 453 S.E.2d 436 (1994).

Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. United Hosp. Ctr., Inc. v. Bedell, 199 W.Va. 316, 484 S.E.2d 199 (1997). In other words,

"`this Court will use prohibition ... to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.' Syllabus Point 1, [in part,] Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979)." Syllabus point 1, in part, State ex rel. DeFrances v. Bedell, 191 W.Va. 513, 446 S.E.2d 906 (1994) [(per curiam)]. Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Charleston Mail Ass'n v. Ranson, 200 W.Va. 5, 488 S.E.2d 5 (1997). Thus, when deciding whether prohibitory relief is appropriate in a given matter, we employ a detailed analysis of various criteria:

In determining whether to entertain and issue the writ of prohibition for cases not involving an absence of jurisdiction but only where it is claimed that the lower tribunal exceeded its legitimate powers, this Court will examine five factors: (1) whether the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the lower tribunal's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the lower tribunal's order is an oft repeated error or manifests persistent disregard for either procedural or substantive law; and (5) whether the lower tribunal's order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression. These factors are general guidelines that serve as a useful starting point for determining whether a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue. Although all five factors need not be satisfied, it is clear that the third factor, the existence of clear error as a matter of law, should be given substantial weight.

Syl. pt. 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996).

Also at issue in the case sub judice is the correctness of the circuit court's interpretation and application of the applicable statutory law concerning privileges relating to health care peer review proceedings. As this contention involves a question of law, we apply a plenary review to the circuit court's decision in this regard. "Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review." Syl. pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep't of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).

Having set forth the appropriate standards for issuing the writ requested by the respondents herein, we proceed to consider the parties' arguments.

III. DISCUSSION

This case presents an issue of first impression as to whether a hospital's records regarding the credentialing and/or recredentialing of a staff physician are protected by the West Virginia health care peer review privilege set forth in W. Va.Code § 30-3C-3 (1980) (Repl.Vol.1998). In the underlying matter, the circuit court determined that "documents ... generated as part of the credentialing process ... are not privileged," and the Chaffins⁴ assert that this ruling was correct. The Hospital, however, contends that such records are protected by the statutory privilege.

Ordinarily, this Court does not accept appeals from interlocutory discovery orders or entertain requests for extraordinary relief that have the same purpose and effect...