*1 right tently for her have a clients’ justice
speak what is for issue of these
plaintiffs and this defendant. fully opinion.
I concur in the Court’s
Jonella R. YATES and Donald Husband, Below,
Her Plaintiffs
Appellants,
UNIVERSITY OF WEST VIRGINIA Statutory TRUSTEES,
BOARD OF Below, Agency,
West Defendant
Appellee. 28241.
No.
Supreme of Appeals Virginia.
West
Submitted Jan. 2001.
Decided 2001. Opinion
Concurring of Justice July
Starcher *3 6,May a cardiac catheterization Thompson, D. On Rogers, William Robert J. Hurricane, by Dr. Robert performed on Mrs. Yates Rogers, Robert of J. Law Office diagnosed with a 60% and she was Touchon Appellants. for the coronary ar- left circumflex stenosis of the Farrell, Jr., Metheney, Paul T. Wesley W. significance of to assess the tery. order Virginia Trial Law- West Amicus Curiae for condition, a stress she underwent Mrs. Yates’ yers Association. stopped May which was test3 Jr., Kowal, Haley, Dustin C. Edward rapid and chest experienced a heart beat she Emerson, Woods, Bagley, McNeer Campbell, pain. Herndon, Huntington, Appellee. for the & Studeny performed Dr. Mark On MAYNARD, Justice. Yates, is the atherectomy on Mrs. *4 husband, on with a small blade Donald of a catheter and her insertion Yates Jonella away deposits cutting in a of Yates, plaintiffs and below end and the appellants case, to appeal lining artery. the final Incidental from the malpractice County Studeny of procedure, Cabell Dr. discovered of the Circuit this order appellants right artery 1999. The iliac was blocked. December Mrs. Yates’ entered appeal to this Court. artery on .artery issues is the which branches raise several The iliac issues, of these artery consideration careful abdominal and delivers After off from the judgment of the circuit court. legs. is blood to the There evidence we reverse resulting
blockage complication awas rare I. artery injury to internal wall of the from during proce- occurring the catheterization FACTS Studeny May Dr. consulted with dure of 6.4 appellant, Jonella Yates May On Burton, radiologist, at- Dr. who Dennis (“Mrs.Yates”) Mary’s hospitalized at St. was day, block- tempted, the next to dissolve the Huntington, Virginia, with West Hospital in artery through age right iliac pain.1 Mrs. Yates’ at- chest complaints of place- performance angioplasty, of an stent Mary’s Hospital was tending physician at St. urokinase, ment, an and the administration spe- Oley, an internal medicine Dr. Gretehen intravenously enzyme to dissolve blood used employee of the Marshall Univer- and cialist clots. governed was sity of Medicine School angiograms5 May on 12 re- University Subsequent by appellee, at this time blockage artery iliac persistent vealed Board of Trustees.2 Virginia West diagnosed February, was 3. A stress test is Mrs. Yates 1. In of the left circumflex coro- stenosis with a 70% evaluating cardiovascular fit- [a] method of March, nary arteiy. she underwent an exercising, usually a treadmill While on ness. angioplasty the stenosis at another to remove bicycle ergometer, or a the individual is sub- as "an abnormal hospital. A is defined stenosis steadily increasing narrowing jected At by tightening levels of work. or condition marked of an body time, passageway oxygen opening struc- con- the same the amount Mosby Encyclopedia Signet determined, Medical ture.” The being an electrocar- sumed is and Glanze, al., (Walter et D. Edition Revised (ECG) diogram being If certain is monitored. eds.1996). Angioplasty of a "[a]lteration is the noted in the ECG or chest abnormalities are vessel, by dilating surgically or either blood develops, pain terminated. the test is space using within the [in a balloon vessel Dictionary, supra, Cyclopedic Taber’s Medical Dictionary Cyclopedic Medical Taber's vessel].” 1845. ed.1997). Thomas, (Clayton ed. 18th L. catheterization, right During femoral 4. University a state institution of is 2. Marshall artery with catheter. The femo- learning governed was entered higher which was in 1994 University immediately artery West Board of Trust- iliac located below the the ees. This board ral on of trustees was abolished artery. higher replaced edu- and June govern public governing board cation interim higher x-ray angiogram "an of a blood vessel 5. An Virginia. W.Va. in West See education contrasting injection Mos- after of a substance.” (2000) (e) (f) §§ and W.Va. Code 18B-2-1 supra Encyclopedia, Medical (2000). change no § This has Code 18B-1C-2 bearing on this case. blockage during angio- an additional in the trifurcation have occurred vessel artery. popliteal artery This is located plasty infusion and initial on urokinase joint part of at back the knee and May signifi- 12. The hematoma resulted in posterior into the tibi- branches anterior cant blood which was loss treated with sever- evening, Dr. peroneal al and arteries.6 That Also, al blood transfusions. infusions Robarts, resident, Timothy surgical noted and administration an heparin, urokinase (pulseless foot not that “if better a.m. anticoagulant prevent clotting, use were now), re-agram will [Mrs. Yates] need at this discontinued time in aid order to likely emboleetomy and fem fem crossover.”7 stopping blood loss. The transfu- blood Generally, discovery from the time in treating sions were successful the hemato- blockage right artery, iliac until ma. May surgery ultimately per- when However, after the infusion of urokinase formed, right the condition of Mrs. Yates’ heparin stopped, and administration were pul- foot waxed and waned. foot Sometimes Also, right leg artery Mrs. Yates’ reelotted. touch, palpable, apparent ses were to the right of her the condition foot continued to pulses not. At and sometimes times the result, on worsen. As 16 Dr. Raman dopplerable, through were or audible a hand- performed emboleetomy Yates to Mrs. device, they held and at not. times were fasciotomy blood clot remove the and a being foot alternated between cool pressure in release the her swollen and ten- *5 pale pink being touch and blue to right subsequently der calf. It was discover- warm. significant ed that Yates had Mrs. suffered morning indicates that on the evidence right in leg, muscle death her foot and lower Raman, May Dr. Venkata a vascular amputation per- and a the knee below was surgeon, became involved in Mrs. Yates’ May 29. formed on for treatment the first time. Dr. Raman was 6, 1996, May Mrs. hus- On Yates and her employee University an of the Marshall brought malpractice band a medical action presented School of Medicine. Evidence was against all of the doctors in her involved right improved by that Mrs. Yates’ foot had treatment, Inc., Radiology, of which Bur- Dr. morning May night, the 13. an Late that employee, Hospi- ton Mary’s was an and St. angiogram artery, showed that the iliac the trial, By June, tal. the time the in trifurcation, and adjoining its vessels were all of defendants had the been dismissed Nevertheless, open. right now Mrs. Yates’ except University from the case of West ischemia, signs foot continued to show Board Trustees who was substi- that, oxygen. thought lack of It was al- Oley in tuted lieu defendants Drs. major though right all arteries of the Raman. leg open, now were Mrs. Yates was from suffering blood clots in small ves- trial, appellants’ At theory was carry foot which from sels blood Oley, attending physician, Dr. Mrs. Yates’ major arteries to the this rea- muscles. For Raman, surgeon, and Dr. her vascular were son, infusion of urokinase was continued tardy iliac right in treatment of her their these clots. dissolve artery, and this in the tardiness resulted early morning May amputation. Specifically, they alleged In hours of retroperitoneal blockage Mrs. Yates suffered a hema- was on when the first discovered Oley immediately May toma which a mass of blood in the mem- Dr. have lining apparently cavity surgeon brane the abdominal a vascular consulted with instead Also, by a radiologist. they alleged caused break a blood Evi- Dr. vessel. presented Raman, becoming was that this Mrs. upon dence break involved in Henry Gray, Anatomy, Descriptive running 6. See And have entailed of a vessel from (T. Surgical den, Pickering artery How- leg right Pick & Robert in the left femoral to the femoral eds., 1974) (“Gray's Anatomy”). 1901 ed. artery supply to restore the blood to'the order right leg. emboleetomy surgical procedure 7. An is a blood remove clots. fem fem would crossover prior to Dr. shows that Ber- May should have record on treatment Yates’ objected testimony, appellants’ counsel gan’s than surgery rather immediately performed grounds on Bergan to Dr. as a witness infusion of uroki- assenting the continued Bergan Dr. and Dr. Raman were theory, appel- support of this nase. friends; Bergan previously on testimony Dr. testified of Dr. Alex presented lants malpractice Zachariah, of Dr. Raman and thoracic sur- behalf a cardiovascular case; evening prior Bergan’s Dr. Oley on the that Dr. deviated geon, opined who testimony, Bergan helped Dr. Dr. by not scheduled standard of care applicable from the prepare impending for his surgeon May and Raman to testimo- on consulting a vascular ny; Bergan performed not vas- negligent operat- in not and Dr. has was that Dr. Raman system in surgery on the clots on cular arterial the blood ing to remove reject- objections years. last ten These were presented appellee response, court, Bergan pro- trial and Dr. ed Bergan, testimony of Dr. John vascular testify Friday, on 18. On ceeded to June ra- opined that interventional surgeon, who cross-examination, appellants’ ques- counsel treating acceptable method of diology is an Bergan on raised tioned Dr. the matters artery Oley so that Dr. blockage of objections. Tuesday, fol- them On June consulting radiologist negligent Raman, testimony lowing of Dr. the de- Likewise, surgeon. a vascular than rather point, appellants’ At fense rested.9 negli- Dr. Raman was not he testified testimony Dr. to strike the counsel moved assenting radiology treatment gent in to the Bergan was not disclosed whether involved already initiated when he became Bergan practice Dr. was licensed to medicine May 13. on the ease in a state of the United States.10 trial, five-day returned After appellee. trial court for the clearly party verdict rules indicate Our appellants’ motion subsequently denied the assigns appeal based on a trial who error and for a new trial. timely aside the verdict set admission of must court’s evidence *6 result, appeal to appellants now this object As a 103 of to that evidence. Rule Court. Virginia of Evidence states: West Rules (a) ruling.Er- erroneous Effect
II. predicated upon ruling a ror not be a which admits or excludes evidence unless DISCUSSION affected, right party substantial first, appellants complain, The in admit trial court abused its discretion (b) Objection.In ruling is ease the testimony expert opinion of Dr. John ting evidence, timely objection admitting a one Bergan was no evidence that because there record, appears or motion to strike stat- practice Bergan Dr. was licensed to medicine objection, ing ground if specific as of the states the United States one specific ground apparent was not from (1986).8 § required by 55-7B-7 W.Va.Code context[.] appellants appellee responds that The addition, by failing In this has held that assignment “[a] of error to waived this objection objection competency of a timely agree. proper at trial. to the wit- a We make 21, holiday Monday, 8.According part: § W.Va.Code 9. June 1994 was state to 55-7B-7 court was not in session. applicable care and a defen- standard of standard, issue, meet if at dant's failure to said professional established in medical shall be Interestingly, responded when trial court testimony liability plaintiff by cases objection appellants' should have been knowledgeable, competent expert more one or brought at the time of Dr. to the court's attention required ex- if the court. Such witnesses pert Bergan's testimony, appellants' replied, counsel testimony may only be admitted in evi- that, [w]ell, you judge, you cure once do his foundation, therefor, if the is first laid dence establishing own defect.” (d) expert .... main- such practice to medicine tains a current license States[.] one of the states the United
493
point
nothing
when man
ness must be made and the
saved
did
to treat Mrs. Yates’ clotted
testimony
at
acceptable
the witness or his
is offered
vessels and
this is
an
not
3,
Syllabus
part,
Nat.
trial[.]”
Point
First
of care.
standard
Bell,
827,
v.
Bank
Ronceverte
158 W.Va.
Of
“We review de
...
novo
the denial of
(1975).
blockage in Mrs. Yates’ Bergan, opined that ed: expert, Dr. pellee’s John from Oley did not deviate and Raman Drs. negligent is not if he selects A doctor because both interven- care
the standard approved or methods one of several more radiology surgery are valid meth- and tional within standard care. treatment ods treatment. words, if than is more one other there resolving all light of this evidence diagnosis recognized generally method appel- in favor of the and inferences doubts is method used treatment no one lee, only one reason- do not believe we exclusively uniformly by physicians, all Accordingly, we possible. able verdict was if, negligent not in the physician is exer- was trial court correct that the conclude judgment, of his medical he selects cise for a appellants’ motion deny the within approved one of the methods end of at the the evidence. as matter law you if standard of care —even believe may chosen retrospect that the alternative reason, For same we believe method treat- not have been best denying trial court did err that the long he as utilizes method ment —as jury to set aside the ver appellants’ motion manner non-negligent as treatment will appellate “An court not set aside dict. instructed the Court. otherwise jury, conflicting of a founded the verdict court, by the testimony approved trial argue that this instruction is appellants against plain prepon verdict is unless the possibility faulty allows for the Syllabus Point derance evidence.” world who doctors would Bartlett, Stephens 118 W.Va. 191 S.E. the alternate treatment are defen- choose (1937). Additionally, expert. testifying and his dant doctor appellants suggest this determining of a instruction whether verdict [i]n evidence, every jury supported by require abandoned or modified inference, legitimate fairly reasonable of doctors ad- a “considerable number” arising from the evidence favor here to a method treatment before it is returned, whom verdict party for recognized as a valid alternative treatment considered, facts, and those which must be method. might find properly under the multiple to abandon the meth- We decline evidence, assumed as must be true. Rather, ods instruction. of treatment Monongahela Syllabus Point Walker v. multiple method of believes Co., Power W.Va. S.E.2d necessary recogni- treatment instruction is (1963). practice is an tion that the of medicine inex- evidence, Again, we set believe by myriad act often science characterized above, support jury’s forth sufficient prob- approaches a medical therapeutic conflicting There was evidence verdict. lem, respect with- all of command treatment, performed Mrs. Yates’ whether profession. This *8 Raman, Oley appli- by Drs. breached the and jurors physician’s properly that a informs jury obviously cable standard of care. The professional judgment choosing in the most by presented appellee the found the evidence in given treatment a situation is a effective credible, Drs. be more and concluded that to indispensable element of fundamental negligent. Ac- Oley and Raman were not Also, practicing instruction medicine. the cordingly, in we find no error the trial court’s jurors deciding of task of relieves appellants’ motion to aside denial set alternatives, treatment, among several insufficiency ap- the verdict based on performed by a been defendant should have pellee’s evidence. addition, physician. instruction to guards against propensity assess a by assignment The third of error raised physician’s judgment advantage of with the appellants trial court erred is that the Finally, multiple hindsight. our research discovered giving jury concerning a instruction
495
jurisdic-
significant
community
truly
gener-
of
the medical
it
number
other
is
ally recognized.
tions
instruction.13
order make this show-
continue
utilize the
ing,
expert
must opine
defendant’s
do, however,
appel
We
share
challenged
diagnosis
method of
or treat-
only
lants’
doctors
concern
support
generally
ment has substantial
and is
world who would choose the alternative
recognized
community.
within
medical
physician
treatment
are the defendant
testimony
usually
This
supported
be
reason,
testifying expert.
his
For this
we
by
extrinsic
sufficient
evidence such as medi-
clarify
it
is
insufficient
show that
textbooks,
treatises,
journal articles,
cal
or
minority
physi
there
a
of
exists
small
Upon
other similar
a proper
evidence.
show-
agree
cians
with
who
the defendant’s chal
defendant,
ing by
multiple
a
methods of
hand,
lenged treatment. On the other
it is
given.
may properly
treatment
necessary
not
for the defendant
to show that
the trial court
Once
makes this determina-
challenged
by
tion,
treatment
is utilized
ultimately
question
it
is
a
for the
Rather,
majority
physicians.
of
the defen
whether it
determine
believes that
the chal-
dant
challenged
lenged
must show that
treat
diagnosis
of
method
or treatment
is
enjoys
ment
such
support
generally recognized,
substantial
within
per-
and the
burden
1986)
approved
(proper
13. Cases in which the instruction was
instruction informs that
fact a
"the
University
recognized
may
include
v.
Pesek
Neurol
doctor
have chosen a method of treatment
Assn., Inc.,
495,
ogists
proves
negli
87
St.3d
721
Ohio
N.E.2d
that later
to be unsuccessful is not
(2000) (although
gence
improper
1011
accepted
found
under the
if the treatment chosen was an
specific
facts
because there was in
case
treatment on the basis of the information avail
it);
support
sufficient evidence to
Bickham v.
able to the
doctor at the time
choice had to be
Grant,
97-CA-01639-COA,
made”);
Kooi,
Docket No.
2000 WL
Peters v. Vander
tiff. issue in this case con primary Because the Therefore, in medi we hold that Oley’s and Ra- propriety of Drs. cerned cases, malpractice “multiple methods cal radiology man’s to use decision interventional (which jury instruction states of treatment” pre surgery than as the rather immediate negligent if provider a is not that health care treating of Ms. Yates’s block ferred method non-negli and he or she selects utilizes proba is a age, we find that there reasonable generally two or gent manner of more one bility jury’s that verdict was influenced recognized diagnosis of or treat methods and, thus, consti improper instruction care) appro of is ment within the standard remand, Upon tutes reversible error. priate evidence shows where the present appellee to burden rests with the diagnosis challenged of or treatment method support multiple additional evidence enjoys support within such substantial of instruction.15 methods treatment is, fact, widely community that in Next, appellants argue that it was necessity generally recognized. The of give for the trial court to prejudicial error support presenting sufficient evidence concerning jury judg- in instruction mistakes multiple of treatment methods responds any appellee The error ment.. with defendant.14 rests harmless. giving the instruction was Applying this standard complained of instruction stat facts, our of the record present set of review ed: on this shows that the defendant’s evidence provider who A health care exercises multiple support issue was insufficient ordinary keeping care with- skill and while instruction, of Dr. methods treatment recognized approved methods with- Bergan opined Oley Drs. and Raman did negligent of in the standard care is not applicable standards of not deviate from the honest a reasonable and mis- [of] in their of Ms. Yates but care treatment hand, judgment. of it is take On the other support presented evidence no extrinsic provider no a health care defense for Therefore, testimony. did the defendant judgment, say that his if he exercised best proof. determining not meet its burden judgment breached standard of multiple the effect of methods treat care. instruction, are mindful that “[a]n ment we ease of Pleasants v. Alliance In the recent presumed prej is to be erroneous instruction Corporation, 209 W.Va. 543 S.E.2d a new trial unless it udicial and warrants (2000), disapproved judg- we the “error complaining party was appears Syllabus and held in Point ment” instruction Syllabus prejudiced by such instruction.” 5: Linger, Hollen v. Point W.Va. (1966). judgment” jury party prejudiced The “mistake of instruc-
S.E.2d 330
tion,
approved in
rights
are affect
which this Court
first
when his
substantial
her
Corbin,
Dye v.
497
longer
misleading,
blockage.17 Accordingly,
tive and
and should no
an instruction
jury concerning
used to
the
be
instruct
the
judgment
which
indicates that mistake
relevant
care in a
mal-
standard of
negligent
long
as
as it is “reasonable and
Accordingly,
hereby
practice action.
we
likely
honest” more
than not influenced the
Corbin,
Dye
59
53
overrule
v.
W.Va.
jury’s
way,
decision. Said another
there is a
(1906),
progeny,
147
its
as
S.E.
insofar
probability
jury’s
reasonable
that the
verdict
approve
giving
the
“mis-
those eases
of a
was influenced
the erroneous instruction.
judgment”
of
take
instruction.
Also, any
giving
effect that the
of the instruc-
However,
we found
Pleasants
the
jury
compounded by
tion had on the
was
the
giving of the
instruction
harmless er-
closing argument
appellee’s
of
counsel
ror.16
which
made
he
several references to it.18
Finally, many
disap-
of the courts which have
Again,
primary
case
the
issue
proved
judgment
of the mistake of
instruc-
Oley
concerned the
of Drs.
consequently
tion
judg-
have reversed the
choosing
Raman
treat Mrs. Yates’
Therefore,
artery
radiology
blocked
with interventional
ment below.19
we conclude that
surgery
rather than
giving
immediate
remove the
the circuit court’s
of the mistake of
Pleasants,
explained
finding
we
our
of
does in the instant case where Mrs. Yates was
harmless error as
properly diagnosed
follows:
primary
and the
issue then
Corbin,
Despite
appropriate
our
to overrule
we
became the most
treatment for her
decision
evidence,
light
do not find
error on the
condition.
of the
the
reversible
basis
Pleasants
giving
judgment”
jury
"mistake
could have
that even
concluded
had the
remaining
in this
patient
case. Since
hospital
instructions
remained at the
for observation
properly
jury regarding
ele-
advised the
would
she still
have died since the
method
necessary
prove
ments
case of medical
for
of treatment
her
was a
condition
combination
malpractice,
giving
we find the
of the instruc-
surgical
Finally,
antibiotics
resection.
tion to
appellate
error. Other
harmless
jury could have concluded
decision to
similarly
courts have
concluded
new
primarily
patient’s
return home was made
required following
giving
trial is not
of a
emergency
mother rather than the
room doctor.
instruction,
judgment”
“mistake of
possibilities
likely
These
make it much less
error,
subsequently
provid-
court
finds to be in
jury
the Pleasants
by
was influenced in its decision
charge correctly
ed the remainder
stated
judgment”
"mistake
instruction.
proving negligence.
the standard for
Pleasants,
50-51,
209
at
W.Va.
543 S.E.2d at
example, appellee’s
argued:
18. For
counsel
(citations omitted).
331-332
judgment,
long
”[A]n honest mistake of
as
as it
underlying
17. This is in
to the
contrast
facts
care,
give
is within
standard of
does not
emergency
Pleasants where an
room doctor
damages
finding
negligence.
rise to
or a
properly diagnose patient’s
failed to
condi-
rare
malpractice
[Medical
law]
....
even allows
tion, discharged
patient
within two
hours
judgment,
long
mistakes
as
as those-as
hospital,
patient
her arrival at the
died
that conduct is within the standard of care.
returning
within a
matter of hours
home.
*
*
*
*
*
theory malpractice
appel-
appellant’s
was the
negligent
is not
if there is an
doctor
honest
patient
keep
hospital
failure
lee’s
at the
for
judgment.
mistake of
That's the law. That's
further
intra-
observation and administration of
Therefore,
Judge Cummings
you".
what
told
judg-
venous
fluids.
“mistake of
pur-
ment” instruction would have been for the
Johnson,
(Ala.
apprising
jury
19. See
v.
So.2d 991
pose of
Shumaker
571
that the
decision
D.O.,
Mauriello,
1990); Riggins v.
patient,
keeping
outcome case not methods of multiple treatment instruc- tion can have same effect as the mistake Virgi- You are instructed under West instruction, judgment if it improperly law, guaran- nia the absence a written minority jurisdictions used. A re- have tee, agreed guaran- and it is that no such jected outright, the instruction but have most case, against tee was made a claim simply modified the instruction its to limit provider upon care health cannot be based majority opinion use. The makes clear alleged guarantee an of a that treatment on a defendant to burden is show will patient nothing be successful or that multiple of treatment methods were available process. will occur in unfortunate prudent to the reasonable doctor to choose Rather, giver’s duty the care is to exercise between, generally and these methods were degree of reasonable care and skill recognized community. within the medical ordinarily employed by which is others profession Physi- specialty. appears jury, the same It fair to com- advise cians, by case, undertaking patient, plex the care of that doctors have available guarantee against injury varying patients, do and cannot not treat all of which means (For might scientifically accepted. or other misfortune. law im- Rather the matter, poses obligation ordinary an any to use be fair to would advise is, course, possible any It complex parties’ experts care. ease that action.) consequence presenting unfavorable result or will oc- are alternative courses of notwithstanding though, key, cur the exercise of ordi- is that the instruction nary care. insinuate that trial has court appli- variant 1. One of the instruction called an “al- of her consistent with the instruction, care, ternative courses of action” these cable standard elected one of (with emphasis subjective alternatives, states on the terms proper you may return a verdict added): Defendant, may though you even favor of the you preponderance If conclude believe that better outcome have result- opinions given [the evidence from the ex- ed if been an alternative course of action had pert witnesses] that two alternative or more elected. of action selected courses could have been See Amicus the West Brief behalf of proper the Defendant as under the circum- Lawyers Trial Association at 3-4. she, stances and that in the reasonable exercise “accepted” of action to be courses found the “appropriate.” or “best like “honest” of terms
The use a “moral” improperly introduce
judgment” analysis. Virtually liability into the
element judgment are hon- professional
all eiTors But doc- good faith. made
est errors simply irrele- of mind is or state
tor’s intent *13 analysis. negligence
vant or course a method of treatment
Whether “appropriate,” “accepted”
of action is an “honest” ex- made
whether the defendant choosing judgment” “best ercise his/her courses, are all those methods
between disputed by
determinations
witnesses, lawyers, and made argued fact finder fact finder. The
final by subjectively-stat-
should not be distracted which muddle the defendant’s
ed instructions
duty. respectfully concur.
I therefore
549 S.E.2d Virginia, Plaintiff of West
STATE
below, Appellee, DEWS,
Lloyd Defendant Mitchell
below, Appellant.
No. 28736. Appeals of
Supreme Court of Virginia.
West April 2001.
Submitted 2001.
Decided
Dissenting Opinion of Justice
Maynard July