State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia University Hospitals--East, Inc. v. The Honorable David M. Hammer, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County
21-0095
| W. Va. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Angela Roberts, a Hospitals registration specialist, had authorized, role-based access to patient electronic records and began supplying patient data to her romantic partner for identity-fraud purposes.
- Law enforcement seized documents linking 113 individuals to the scheme; Hospitals audited Roberts’s system access and identified ~7,445 patient records she viewed between March 2016 and Jan 2017.
- Hospitals sent two form notices: most recipients were told they were not known victims but were offered one year of identity-monitoring; the 109 West Virginia residents whose data was found in the perpetrator’s possession were told their data was likely compromised.
- Plaintiffs Welch and Roman sued Hospitals on multiple theories (breach of confidentiality, negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, WV Consumer Code, etc.); Welch’s data was not found in the perpetrator’s possession, Roman’s was.
- The circuit court certified a putative class (~7,445) and a subclass (109 whose data was found) and appointed Welch and Roman as class representatives; Hospitals sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
- The Supreme Court granted the writ: it held Welch lacks standing because Roberts’s authorized access was not a wrongful divulgence and remanded because the circuit court failed to thoroughly analyze typicality as to Roman’s subclass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of class representatives (injury-in-fact) | Welch/Roman: viewing was dual-purpose—authorized job access became wrongful when employee "cased" records for illicit use, so plaintiffs suffered breach/invasion. | Hospitals: Roberts’s viewing was authorized as part of job duties; mere internal viewing without disclosure is not a wrongful divulgence or unreasonable intrusion. | Court: At least one named plaintiff must have standing for each claim. Welch lacks injury-in-fact because authorized access without disclosure is not a breach/invasion; Roman may have standing because his data was found in the perpetrator’s possession. |
| Typicality for Roman’s subclass (Rule 23(a)(3)) | Roman: his claims arise from the same event and legal theories as subclass members (same employee misconduct). | Hospitals: No evidence Roberts actually accessed Roman’s records; Roman’s circumstances differ and may expose atypical defenses. | Court: Circuit court failed to conduct the required "thorough analysis" of Roman’s individual circumstances and atypical defenses; subclass certification cannot be enforced without such analysis—remand. |
| Scope of class certification and writ relief | Plaintiffs: class certification appropriate; merits not for certification stage. | Hospitals: Class improperly certified; writ appropriate because certification order is clearly erroneous as matter of law (standing/prerequisites). | Court: Writ granted to the extent the class including Welch is vacated for lack of standing; subclass certification also vacated as to Roman for inadequate typicality analysis; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Findley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 213 W. Va. 80, 576 S.E.2d 807 (2002) (sets three-element standing test: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 191 W. Va. 426, 446 S.E.2d 648 (1994) (patient has cause of action for breach of duty of confidentiality against treating physician who wrongfully divulges information)
- Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (1983) (definition of invasion of privacy categories)
- In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W. Va. 52, 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003) (Rule 23 prerequisites and typicality guidance; need for thorough analysis)
- State ex rel. W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Gaujot, 242 W. Va. 54, 829 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (trial court must perform a thorough analysis when certifying class; merits consideration limited but sometimes necessary)
- Tabata v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 233 W. Va. 512, 759 S.E.2d 459 (2014) (applied Morris to find standing where hospital data was wrongfully placed on the internet)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (standing is not dispensed in gross; internal inaccurate information not a concrete harm absent disclosure)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (merits questions may be considered to the extent relevant to Rule 23 analysis)