May 21, 2022

Volume XII, Number 141

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 20, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

WV Supreme Court of Appeals Decides Hospital Records Case Clarifying "Typicality" Requirement for Class Certification

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently decided a class certification matter that suggests trial courts must undertake a closer examination of the requirements for certifying class actions in West Virginia state courts. 

In State ex rel. W. Va. University Hospitals--East, Inc. v. Hammer, patients sued several West Virginia hospitals after an employee stole medical records to aid her friend’s identity theft scheme. The trial court certified a class of over 7,000 patients, representing every medical record accessed by the employee, and a subclass of 109 individuals whose information was actually in possession of the employee’s accomplice. The hospitals then filed a petition for writ of prohibition, seeking to prevent the enforcement of the class certification order. 

The Supreme Court of Appeals first held that a would-be class action plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing as to each claim. The Court explained that the patient whose information was accessed, but not found in possession of the employee's accomplice, lacked standing because she did not suffer an injury-in-fact. The Court distinguished prior cases involving wholly unauthorized access to confidential information and rejected the argument that the hospital employee’s authorized access of confidential patient information for legitimate hospital purposes became wrongful when she considered whether to divulge the data. As to the patient whose information was not only accessed, but also stolen, the injury-in-fact requirement was satisfied.

Next, the Court analyzed the certification of the subclass of patients whose information was actually stolen. Here, the Court focused on the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that claims of the representative be “typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The Court concluded that the trial court had failed to conduct the required “thorough analysis” of the typicality requirement because it did not consider the class representative’s individual circumstances as they related to the claims he asserted and the class he represented. The Court pointed to the lack of evidence that the employee had actually accessed the class representative’s information. The Court thus prohibited the trial court from enforcing the order granting class certification. 

This decision clarifies the approach that courts must take when determining class certification. Parties seeking class certification should be aware that certification will not be granted unless a thorough analysis is done under the typicality requirement. This will require courts to do an in-depth review of the particular circumstances in which class certification is sought. This decision further emphasizes that certification will not be freely given unless evidence proves the existence of an injury-in-fact.  

This decision serves as a reminder of the importance in challenging class certification that is inappropriately sought and serves as a warning to those who attempt class certification without an injury-in-fact.  

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 351
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Kristen Wilson Steptoe Johnson Law Firm Wheeling, WV Professional Liability Litigation Attorney
Member

Clients know that Kristen Andrews Wilson will help them understand and navigate the complex and complicated healthcare landscape.  Kristen’s clients include hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities, as well as independent healthcare providers.  Kristen’s practice is a unique combination of litigation avoidance via counseling and defense via litigation, when necessary.  In addition to her medical malpractice litigation practice, Kristen has experience with federal and state healthcare regulatory compliance, as well as business transactions involving...

304-231-0444
Adam Ennis, Steptoe Johnson Law Firm, Energy Litigation Attorney
Member

Adam Ennis is a member of the firm’s Energy Litigation, Construction and Business Litigation practice groups. He has over twenty-five years of civil litigation experience. He has successfully handled numerous large and complex cases in federal court, state court and arbitrations. Mr. Ennis is Adjunct Professor at the University Of Pittsburgh School Of Law, where he teaches Trial Advocacy. He is an Approved Mediator for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ennis is admitted to practice law in New York, Pennsylvania and West...

724-749-3180
Shaina Richardson Litigation Attorney Steptoe & Johnson Morgantown, WV
Member

Shaina Richardson brings a wealth of federal court experience to clients facing litigation. Her work as a federal judicial clerk familiarized her with the lifecycle of cases—from district court to the appellate level. Shaina’s comfort level with courtroom procedure is valuable in the development of defense strategies. Her ability to think outside of the box and solve problems lends itself well to creative solutions for clients. Shaina’s diverse practice includes defending clients in commercial and general litigation, as well as energy-specific matters involving land and...

304-598-8122
Katie R. Herrmann Professional Liability Lawyer Steptoe & Johnson
Associate

Katie Herrmann focuses her practice in the area of professional liability. In her litigation practice, Katie brings a fresh perspective and a drive that makes her a reliable and dedicated attorney. She enjoys collaborating with her clients to produce the best results for all involved. Katie provides guidance and practical advice for clients as she helps them navigate complex legal transactions. Katie’s responsive, driven, and reasonable approach to law makes her an ideal choice for clients.

(304) 230-2339
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement