State v. Marks

Decision Date15 November 2012
Docket NumberNos. 12–0304,12–0210.,s. 12–0304
Citation230 W.Va. 517,741 S.E.2d 75
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of West Virginia ex rel. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner v. Honorable John Lewis MARKS, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, et al., Respondents. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. Carmella J. Faris and Robert Faris, Plaintiffs Below, Respondents.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. “A writ of prohibition is available to correct a clear legal error resulting from a trial court's substantial abuse of its discretion in regard to discovery orders.” Syllabus point 1, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stephens, 188 W.Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992).

2. “A trial court is permitted broad discretion in the control and management of discovery, and it is only for an abuse of discretion amounting to an injustice that we will interfere with the exercise of that discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when its rulings on discovery motions are clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock our sense of justice and to indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Syllabus point 1, B.F. Specialty Co. v. Charles M. Sledd Co., 197 W.Va. 463, 475 S.E.2d 555 (1996).

3. “A court may not issue a protective order directing an insurance company to return or destroy a claimant's medical records prior to the time period set forth by the Insurance Commissioner of West Virginia in §§ 114–15–4.2(b) and 114–15–4.4(a) of the West Virginia Code of State Rules for the retention of such records.” Syllabus point 7, State ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bedell, 226 W.Va. 138, 697 S.E.2d 730 (2010).

4. “In order for a delegation of authority by the legislature to be constitutional, the legislature must prescribe adequate statutory standards to guide the agency in the administration of the statute, and not grant the agency unbridled authority in the exercise of the power conferred upon it....” Syllabus point 2, in part, State ex rel. Mountaineer Park, Inc. v. Polan, 190 W.Va. 276, 438 S.E.2d 308 (1993).

5. “Where there is a direct and fundamental encroachment by one branch of government into the traditional powers of another branch of government, this violates the separation of powers doctrine contained in Section 1 of Article V of the West Virginia Constitution.” Syllabus point 2, Appalachian Power Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 170 W.Va. 757, 296 S.E.2d 887 (1982).

6. “The West Virginia Rules of Evidence and the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure allocate significant discretion to the trial court in making evidentiary and procedural rulings. Thus rulings on the admissibility of evidence and the appropriateness of a particular sanction for discovery violations are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Absent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary and procedural rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syllabus point 1, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995).

7. “A trial court is permitted broad discretion in the control and management of discovery, and it is only for an abuse of discretion amounting to an injustice that we will interfere with the exercise of that discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when its rulings on discovery motions are clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock our sense of justice and to indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Syllabus point 1, B.F. Specialty Co. v. Charles M. Sledd Co., 197 W.Va. 463, 475 S.E.2d 555 (1996).

8. As part of a court's exclusive authority to manage discovery in its tribunal, a court also may enter protective orders to safeguard the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery and to regulate the manner in which such information may be used.

Charles S. Piccirillo, Shaffer & Shaffer, PLLC, Madison, WV, Denise D. Pentino, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Wheeling, WV, Attorneys for the Petitioner, State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.

David J. Romano, Romano Law Office, Clarksburg, WV, Attorney for the Respondents, Matthew L. Huggins and Carmella J. Faris and Robert Faris.

Mark A. Behrens, PHV, Cary Silverman, PHV, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Washington, District of Columbia, Ancil G. Ramey, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Huntington, WV, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, The American Tort Reform Association.

Brian D. Morrison, Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, Charleston, WV, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia.

Marvin W. Masters, Kelly Elswick–Hall, Richard A. Monahan, The Masters Law Firm LC, Charleston, WV, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Association for Justice.

James D. Lamp, Matthew J. Perry, Lamp, O'Dell, Bartram, Levy, Trautwein & Perry, PLLC, Huntington, WV, Attorneys for Amici Curiae, West Virginia Insurance Federation, American Insurance Association, and The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

Thomas V. Flaherty, Tammy R. Harvey, Kiersan C. Smith, Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso, PLLC, Charleston, WV, Attorneys for the Petitioner, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

Corey L. Palumbo, Thomas Hancock, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Brickstreet Mutual Insurance Company.

James G. Hertz, PHV, Andrew J. Sosnowski, PHV, Des Plaines, Illinois, David K. Hendrickson, R. Scott Long, Barbara A. Samples, Hendrickson & Long, PLLC, Charleston, WV, Attorneys for Amici Curiae, National Insurance Crime Bureau and Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Andrew R. Pauley, Victor A. Mullins, Offices of the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner, Charleston, WV, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Insurance Commissioner.

D.C. Offutt, Jr., Matthew Mains, Offutt Nord Burchett, PLLC, Huntington, WV, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Mutual Insurance Company, Inc.

DAVIS, Justice:

For the third year in a row, this Court has been asked to consider whether medical protective orders are valid and enforceable to limit the dissemination and retention of medical records obtained through discovery.1 SUCH ORDERS HAVE Been entered in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs seeking compensation for the injuries they have sustained in motor vehicle accidents caused by other motorists. Repeatedly, the insurers from whom such compensation has been sought have requested this Court,2 the United States Supreme Court,3 and a federal district court 4 to invalidatethese protective orders as burdensome, unnecessary, restrictive, intrusive, and/or unconstitutional. And, each time the reviewing Court has examined these medical protective orders, it has upheld the medical protective order as substantively valid and enforceable 5 as a proper exercise of the issuing court's supervisory authority over discovery.6 In the cases sub judice, we again are asked to invalidate the subject medical protective orders. Again, however, we decline the invitation to do so.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Because the errors assigned in each of the cases sub judice are substantially the same, they have been consolidated for this Court's consideration and resolution. The facts giving rise to each insurance company's request for relief are as follows.

A. Case Number 12–0304: State of West Virginia ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Marks

On June 6, 2008, Matthew L. Huggins (hereinafter “Mr. Huggins”) was injured in a motor vehicle accident with Thomas Shuman (hereinafter “Mr. Shuman”). Thereafter, on May 14, 2010, Mr. Huggins filed a cause of action against Mr. Shuman; Mr. Shuman's employer, Woodward Video, LLC; and the owner of Woodward Video, Brian Woodward. In his attempt to recover for the injuries he sustained, Mr. Huggins filed a claim against the defendants' insurer, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide), as well as claims for medical payments and underinsured motorist benefits (hereinafter “UIM benefits”) against his own insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). Mr. Huggins disagreed with Nationwide over the terms governing the disclosure of his medical records and information to Nationwide, and State Farm eventually became involved in the dispute and requested the circuit court to stay its decision regarding a medical protective order pending the United States Supreme Court's resolution of State Farm's appeal in Bedell II.

The circuit court denied State Farm's requested stay and, on May 23, 2011, the circuit court entered a “Protective Order Granting Plaintiff Protection For His Confidential Medical Records and Medical Information,” which is at issue herein. Nationwide and State Farm objected to the terms of the order, contending, among other things, that the medical protective order was too restrictive because it affected the insurers' ability to retain and report the information to governmental agencies regulating insurers and to retain and utilize such information in its claims files. State Farm renewed its request for a stay of the proceedings or for modification of the protective orders terms, which relief the circuit court refused by order entered December 7, 2011. The circuit court consolidated this case with the companion case presently before the Court, i.e., Case Number 12–0210, and, on January 13, 2012, the circuit court entered an order affirming the medical protective orders entered in both cases. From this adverse ruling, State Farm requests this Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing the subject medical protective order.

B. Case Number 12–0210: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Faris

On May 2, 2008, Carmella J. Faris (hereinafter Mrs. Faris) was injured in a motor vehicle accident with Linda Lee Harding (hereinafter “Ms....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT