Vest v. St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital, Inc.
387 S.E.2d 282, 182 W. Va. 228 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that governs access to its courts, such as requiring a pre-suit medical malpractice review panel, is a procedural rule that does not prevent a resident of another state from filing suit in their home state's court, provided the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Facts:
- Otis Vest, a resident of West Virginia, suffered from Parkinson’s disease.
- In April 1984, St. Albans Mental Health Services in West Virginia referred Vest for hospitalization at St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital in Radford, Virginia.
- St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital is a Virginia corporation that is licensed to do business in West Virginia.
- Vest was hospitalized in the Virginia facility from May to September 1984.
- During his hospitalization, Vest's condition allegedly worsened due to negligent treatment by the Virginia hospital and its staff.
- Otis Vest and his wife, Pauline Vest, did not notify the Virginia hospital of their claim before filing a lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Otis and Pauline Vest sued St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia, a state trial court.
- The defendant, St. Albans, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
- The Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the Vests had failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement of Virginia's medical malpractice statute.
- The Vests, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Virginia statute requiring a plaintiff to provide notice and potentially submit to a medical review panel before filing a malpractice lawsuit bar a West Virginia resident from bringing such a suit in a West Virginia court for an injury that occurred in Virginia?
Opinions:
Majority - Neely, J.
No. A Virginia statute requiring pre-suit notice and a potential medical review panel does not bar a West Virginia resident from filing a malpractice suit in a West Virginia court. While West Virginia's choice-of-law rule, lex loci delicti, requires applying Virginia's substantive law, the Virginia statute is a procedural 'door-closing' rule that only governs access to Virginia's own courts. Unlike a federal court sitting in diversity which acts as 'another court of the state,' a West Virginia court is a court of a different sovereign. Virginia can control access to its own courts but cannot, by that act, deny access to the courts of West Virginia when West Virginia has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Applying Virginia's burdensome pre-suit process in West Virginia would improperly impinge on West Virginia's sovereignty and its authority to control access to its own courts for its own citizens.
Dissenting - Brotherton, C.J.
Yes. The Virginia statute should bar the suit in West Virginia. The majority’s decision is blatant protectionism that contravenes West Virginia's adherence to the lex loci delicti rule. The Fourth Circuit has already held that the Virginia review panel statute is substantive law for Erie purposes, and the majority offers no compelling reason to treat it as purely procedural. This holding ignores the substantive law of Virginia, the state where the injury occurred and whose law should govern. The decision encourages forum shopping and improperly extends the right to sue in one's home state to also include the right to ignore the applicable substantive law of the place of the injury.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant distinction between the classification of a state law for Erie doctrine purposes versus state-to-state conflict of laws analysis. It holds that a state's 'door-closing' statute, even if deemed 'substantive' for Erie, will be treated as procedural by a sister state's court. This prioritizes the forum state's sovereign interest in controlling access to its own courts for its residents over the uniform application of the law of the state where the tort occurred. The decision limits the extraterritorial effect of state statutes that regulate litigation procedure rather than the underlying rights and obligations of the parties, potentially increasing forum shopping.
