Community News
CCMH petitions U.S. Supreme Court on appeal
By JEFFREY SAULTON, jsaulton@newsandsentinel.com
POSTED: January 31, 2008
PARKERSBURG — An appeal of punitive damages awarded in a malpractice suit against a local hospital may be heading for the U.S. Supreme Court.
In December attorneys representing Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital filed a petition asking the high court to address the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals failure to review the constitutionality of the punitive damages awarded. Punitive damages are imposed to serve as a punishment for the defendant.
In March 2006 more than $4 million was awarded to the family of Hilda Boggs in a malpractice suit against the hospital.
According to the petition filed by Thomas R. Goodwin, of Goodwin and Goodwin in Charleston, attorney for the hospital, the state Supreme Court failed to recognize its obligation to provide a review of punitive damages.
“This failure placed the Supreme Court of Appeals squarely at odds with this court’s decision and it denied litigants, such as Camden-Clark, the minimum procedural due process protections required” by the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution.
According to the petition, the hospital appealed the decision in October 2006. In a two-sentence order, with two justices dissenting, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused to review the award. A year later the hospital filed to renew its petition after the time limit for appeals passed where again it was stated the hospital was entitled to a review. With one justice dissenting, the review was denied for a second time in November 2007.
“In Camden-Clark’s view, this court (U.S. Supreme Court) has already decided the question presented by the petition, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has simply failed to heed this court’s ruling,” the petition states.
They added the order would further assure all West Virginia litigants will receive procedural protection in the future. They also stated Camden-Clark was not the only litigant denied a review of damages by the state Supreme Court.
Christopher Regan, who represented the Boggs family in the circuit court trial, said the hospital has paid the amount awarded to the Boggs family, except for attorney fees, which is still under appeal to the state Supreme Court.
“They have paid the verdict, so I’m not sure they can do this,” he said. “This is very unusual.”
Regan said the hospital’s attorneys are trying to have the U.S. Supreme Court “order the West Virginia Supreme Court to review the case harder.”
Regan said the punitive damages in the case fall within the guidelines for awarding damages and are constitutional.
Camden-Clark spokesman Greg Smith said the hospital could not comment on the case.
“The petition speaks for itself and it has been Camden-Clark’s position not to comment on pending litigation,” he said.
A call to Goodwin was not returned Monday night.
Regan said he has not responded to the petition. He said unlike a state case, where the parties have a certain amount of time to reply, most times the parties wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to ask for a response. Regan said he could respond before the court asks for one, but he plans to wait.
In December attorneys representing Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital filed a petition asking the high court to address the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals failure to review the constitutionality of the punitive damages awarded. Punitive damages are imposed to serve as a punishment for the defendant.
In March 2006 more than $4 million was awarded to the family of Hilda Boggs in a malpractice suit against the hospital.
According to the petition filed by Thomas R. Goodwin, of Goodwin and Goodwin in Charleston, attorney for the hospital, the state Supreme Court failed to recognize its obligation to provide a review of punitive damages.
“This failure placed the Supreme Court of Appeals squarely at odds with this court’s decision and it denied litigants, such as Camden-Clark, the minimum procedural due process protections required” by the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution.
According to the petition, the hospital appealed the decision in October 2006. In a two-sentence order, with two justices dissenting, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused to review the award. A year later the hospital filed to renew its petition after the time limit for appeals passed where again it was stated the hospital was entitled to a review. With one justice dissenting, the review was denied for a second time in November 2007.
“In Camden-Clark’s view, this court (U.S. Supreme Court) has already decided the question presented by the petition, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has simply failed to heed this court’s ruling,” the petition states.
They added the order would further assure all West Virginia litigants will receive procedural protection in the future. They also stated Camden-Clark was not the only litigant denied a review of damages by the state Supreme Court.
Christopher Regan, who represented the Boggs family in the circuit court trial, said the hospital has paid the amount awarded to the Boggs family, except for attorney fees, which is still under appeal to the state Supreme Court.
“They have paid the verdict, so I’m not sure they can do this,” he said. “This is very unusual.”
Regan said the hospital’s attorneys are trying to have the U.S. Supreme Court “order the West Virginia Supreme Court to review the case harder.”
Regan said the punitive damages in the case fall within the guidelines for awarding damages and are constitutional.
Camden-Clark spokesman Greg Smith said the hospital could not comment on the case.
“The petition speaks for itself and it has been Camden-Clark’s position not to comment on pending litigation,” he said.
A call to Goodwin was not returned Monday night.
Regan said he has not responded to the petition. He said unlike a state case, where the parties have a certain amount of time to reply, most times the parties wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to ask for a response. Regan said he could respond before the court asks for one, but he plans to wait.
Share:
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpacesMember Comments
View Comments: | 1-1 | Post a comment
|
cabaka
|
|
|---|---|
|
01-31-08 5:47 PM
|
CCMH hurts people with medical errors and hides it. Repeatedly. This has been pointed out perfectly clearly and nothing has changed. $4 in punitive damages, no criminal charges, no comment, no oversight, nothing has changed. Hiding medical errors is usual and customary for CCMH. Angioplasty? Not at CCMH until there is some reason to believe it is a place sick people can go to get better, not be butchered, deceived, billed an obscene amount and sent to the undertaker or a real medical facility. Where does the $4 Million in punitive damages come from, those that cause the problem? Not a chance. One way or another we will pay. If you are too hot, don’t jump into a fire. If you are ill, don’t go near CCMH.
|