The Healthcare Defender

In 2025, West Virginia’s appellate courts issued a trio of decisions that together refine both the reach and the rigor of the state’s Medical Professional Liability Act (“MPLA”). For physicians, hospitals, and other health-care providers, these rulings clarify when the MPLA applies and reaffirm that its procedural safeguards and time limits must be strictly observed.

In February 2025, the Intermediate Court of Appeals addressed the statute of limitations in Moschonas v. Jefferson Medical Center (No. 24-ICA-79). The plaintiffs filed suit more than two years after the alleged malpractice, arguing that the MPLA’s pre-suit notice procedure tolled the limitations period. The court disagreed, holding that tolling ceases once the health-care provider responds to the notice, not when the thirty-day response window expires. Because the plaintiffs filed after that period ended, their claims were time-barred. Moschonas reinforces that the MPLA’s two-year limitations period is applied strictly and that its tolling provisions are narrow exceptions rather than extensions that restart the clock.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeals decided Elaine Neidig v. Valley Health System (No. 24-27), a case testing the scope of the MPLA. The plaintiff had sought only economic damages, expressly disclaiming any physical or emotional injury. The Court held that such claims fall outside the MPLA because the statute governs only liability “for damages resulting from the death or injury of a person.” By limiting the Act to genuine personal-injury or wrongful-death claims, the Court clarified that suits involving purely financial disputes, such as reimbursement or refund demands, are not subject to the MPLA’s pre-suit notice, certificate-of-merit, or damages-cap provisions.  Although a dissent warned that plaintiffs might exploit this distinction through careful pleading, the majority emphasized the importance of the statute’s plain language, holding that “the Legislature’s intent that the MPLA apply only to medical professional liability actions against health care providers or health care facilities that involve the death or injury of a person.”  Overall, the Court’s holding was that “the Medical Professional Liability Act does not apply to a suit against a health care  provider  or  health  care  facility  when  the  plaintiff  claims  only  economic damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death.”  The decision provides valuable guidance for health-care defendants assessing whether MPLA protections apply in mixed contract-and-tort disputes. 

Two months later, the Intermediate Court of Appeals reinforced the MPLA’s procedural rigor in Summers v. Moore (No. 24-ICA-385). There, a medical-negligence complaint was dismissed because the plaintiff’s pre-suit certificate of merit had been executed by a registered nurse rather than a physician qualified in the same or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant. The court concluded that a valid certificate of merit is jurisdictional.  Without one, a circuit court lacks authority to hear the case. Summers underscores that the MPLA’s pre-suit requirements are not technicalities but essential prerequisites to litigation, and that any defect in expert qualifications can be fatal to a claim.

Collectively, these decisions provide important clarity and predictability for West Virginia’s medical community. Neidig confines the MPLA to cases involving genuine personal injury or death, Summers emphasizes the jurisdictional importance of compliance with pre-suit certification, and Moschonas reminds all parties that timing remains critical. Together, they affirm the Legislature’s balance between ensuring patient access to justice and protecting health-care professionals from procedurally defective or time-barred claims.

At Bowles Rice, our Medical Malpractice Defense team continues to monitor developments in the MPLA and to advise providers on compliance, litigation strategy, and risk management. These recent decisions highlight the importance of early legal involvement when a claim arises, both to determine whether the MPLA governs and to ensure that every statutory protection is properly preserved. If you have questions about developments under the MPLA, contact our Medical Malpractice Defense team for further guidance.