Donta Wade v. University Physicians & Surgeons, Inc., Marshall Health Network, Inc., Holly Nauert, D.O., and Lee Van Horn, M.D.
24-ica-378
Intermediate Court of Appeals ...Apr 29, 2025Background
- Donta Wade filed an amended complaint against University Physicians & Surgeons, Marshall Health Network, Dr. Holly Nauert, and Dr. Lee Van Horn, alleging several tort claims arising from his treatment by these healthcare providers.
- Wade asserted that confidential information shared with Dr. Nauert, a resident, was improperly discussed with an attending physician, and challenged Marshall’s assignment of a resident as his primary care physician after requesting a new doctor.
- The amended complaint included ten causes of action, but lacked substantive factual allegations outlining the elements of each claim.
- Defendants moved to dismiss primarily because Wade failed to comply with the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) pre-suit notice requirements, and for failure to state a claim.
- Wade filed a statement in lieu of a screening certificate of merit, arguing his claims did not require expert testimony, but did so after filing suit—not beforehand as required.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Wade appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MPLA apply to Wade’s claims? | Claims are ordinary legal theories, not medical malpractice. | Claims arose within context of health care; MPLA applies. | MPLA applies to these claims. |
| Is a pre-suit certificate/statement required? | Statement in lieu is sufficient, as claims don’t need expert testimony. | Certificate (or timely statement in lieu) is required and was not provided pre-suit. | Pre-suit notice is required; post-suit notice insufficient. |
| Did Wade state valid claims? | Complaint asserts ten causes of action by reference. | Allegations are conclusory, lacking the elements required. | Complaint fails to state a claim; dismissal is appropriate. |
| Did the court lack jurisdiction due to no pre-suit notice? | Procedure was sufficient; jurisdiction exists. | Pre-suit notice is jurisdictional under MPLA. | No jurisdiction due to noncompliance; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex. rel McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. 770 (W. Va. 1995) (de novo review on motion to dismiss)
- Blankenship v. Ethicon, Inc., 221 W. Va. 700 (W. Va. 2007) (MPLA applies based on context, not claim labeling)
- Wiggins v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 63 (W. Va. 1987) (take complaint allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Mountaineer Fire & Rescue Equip., LLC v. City Nat’l Bank of W. Va., 244 W. Va. 508 (W. Va. 2020) (complaint must state claim elements or permit inference)