Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Ctr., Inc. v. L.K.

902 S.E.2d 434

POTOMAC COMPREHENSIVE DIAGNOSTIC & GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., aka Potomac Center, Inc., Defendant Below, Petitioner,

v.L.K., BY Her Guardian and Conservator, Kelly YOUNG, and D.S., by His Guardian and Conservator, Kelly Young, Plaintiffs Below, Respondents.

No. 22-0340

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: April 17, 2024

Filed: June 5, 2024

Syllabus by the Court

1. " ‘ "A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law." Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).’ Syllabus Point 1, Andrick v. Town of Buckhannon, 187 W.Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (1992)."

Syl. Pt. 1, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995).

2. "Although the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court’s ruling will be reversed on appeal when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence." Syl. Pt. 4, Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 159 W. Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976).

3. "W. Va. Code § 5-11-9(7)(A) (1998) (2006) of the West Virginia Human Rights Act establishes three distinct causes of action. More specifically, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 5-11-9(7)(A), unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the state of West Virginia or its agencies or political subdivisions, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, employer, employment agency, labor organization, owner, real estate broker, real estate salesman or financial institution to: (1) engage in any form of threats or reprisal, or (2) engage in, or hire, or conspire with others to commit acts or activities of any nature, the purpose of which is to harass, degrade, embarrass or cause physical harm or economic loss, or (3) aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce any person to engage in any of the unlawful discriminatory practices defined in W. Va. Code § 5-11-9." Syl. Pt. 5, Michael v. Appalachian Heating, LLC, 226 W. Va. 394, 701 S.E.2d 116 (2010).

4. " ‘The West Virginia Rules of Evidence … allocate significant discretion to the trial court in making evidentiary … rulings. Thus, rulings on the admission of evidence … are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Absent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary … rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard.’ Syl. Pt. 1, in part, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995)." Syl. Pt. 9, Tudor v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W. Va. III, 506 S.E.2d 554 (1997).

5. "Rule 401 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence requires the trial court to determine the relevancy of the exhibit on the basis of whether the [exhibit] is probative as to a fact of consequence in the case. The trial court then must consider whether the probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed by the counterfactors listed in Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. As to the balancing under Rule 403, the trial court enjoys broad discretion. The Rule 403 balancing test is essentially a matter of trial conduct, and the trial court’s discretion will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse." Syl. Pt. 10, State v. Derr, 192 W. Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).

6. "Although Rules 401 and 402 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence strongly encourage the admission of as much evidence as possible, Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence restricts this liberal policy by requiring a balancing of interests to determine whether logically relevant is legally relevant evidence. Specifically, Rule 403 provides that although relevant, evidence may nevertheless be excluded when the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue delay is disproportionate to the value of the evidence." Syl. Pt. 9, State v. Derr, 192 W. Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).

7. "Before evidence may be admitted under W. Va. R. Evid. 803(6), the proponent must demonstrate that such evidence is (1) a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form; (2) concerning acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses; (3) made at or near the time of the matters set forth; (4) by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters; (5) that the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and (6) that it was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice." Syl. Pt. 7, Lacy v. CSX Transp. Inc., 205 W. Va. 630, 520 S.E.2d 418 (1999), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Miller v. Allman, 240 W. Va. 438, 813 S.E.2d 91 (2018).

8. "The trial court has an obligation to all parties to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair manner." Syl. Pt. 3, in part, State v. Delorenzo, 247 W. Va. 707, 885 S.E.2d 645 (2022).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hardy County, Honorable C. Carter Williams, Judge, Civil Action No. 2020-C-13

Charles R. Bailey, Esq., David J. Mincer, Esq., Adam K. Strider, Esq., Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Petitioner

Jonathan Marshall, Esq., Sharon F. Iskra, Esq., Victor S. Woods, Esq., Samuel A. Hrko, Esq., Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, and Deepak Gupta, Esq., Robert Friedman, Esq., Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Respondents

HUTCHISON, Justice:

The petitioner and defendant below, Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc., also known as Potomac Center, Inc. ("Potomac"), appeals the April 1, 2022, order of the Circuit Court of Hardy County denying its motion for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its alternative motion to alter or amend judgment after a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the respondents and plaintiffs below, L.K.¹ and D.S., by and through their guardian and conservator, Kelly Young (collectively "plaintiffs"). The plaintiffs alleged that they were abused and neglected by Potomac staff members while residing at the facility for approximately five months spanning the years 2013 and 2014. They asserted claims for negligence and unlawful discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act.²

In this appeal, Potomac asserts that the circuit court erred by: (1) denying its pretrial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Potomac is a "place of public accommodations" under the Human Rights Act; (2) failing to dismiss the claim that Potomac violated the Human Rights Act by creating a hostile environment for its residents; (3) admitting evidence at trial pertaining to the abuse of other children who resided at Potomac and the results of a 2014 investigation of that abuse; (4) allowing an expert witness to testify that L.K. and D.S. were abused while they resided at Potomac; and (ð) instructing the jury regarding knowledge imputed to an employer. Potomac further contends that the above errors constituted cumulative error; the amount of the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence; and the jury’s award of significant damages for pain and suffering was an improper attempt to award punitive damages. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the submitted appendix record, and pertinent authorities, we find that Potomac is not a "place of public accommodations" under the Human Rights Act and that the circuit court erred by not granting summary judgment to Potomac on this issue prior to trial. We further find that the circuit court committed reversible error by admitting the 2014 investigative reports in their entirety into evidence at trial. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s final order and remand this case for a new trial.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

Potomac is a residential behavioral health center located in Romney, West Virginia, that was established in 1980 with the goal of teaching its patients skills to maximize their potential for self-care and independent living while reducing their negative behaviors. At the time of the events that led to the filing of this civil action, Potomac accommodated twenty-four children ranging in age from seven years to nineteen years old who were diagnosed with developmental, intellectual, and/or behavioral disorders. Many of the children residing at Potomac were autistic and had violent personality or behavioral conditions. Nine of the children were nonverbal or nonverbal by definition, meaning they had limited communication skills. The children were placed in one of three houses, known as "A House," "B House," and "C House" based on their physical age, developmental age, and abilities. The youngest children were in "A House," while the oldest resided in "C House."

L.K. was a resident at Potomac from June 24, 2013, to December 10, 2013. She was fourteen years old when she entered Potomac and was initially placed in "B House" based on her physical age but was moved to "A House" when a bed became available. L.K. was referred to Potomac by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR")³ after she was removed from the care and custody of her mother during an abuse and neglect proceeding. L.K. has severe autism and a pervasive developmental disorder. She is considered nonverbal.

D.S. resided at Potomac from August 1, 2013, to January 17, 2014. D.S. has severe autism, developmental delay learning difficulties, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder. He is also nonverbal. D.S. was nine years old when he entered Potomac but was functioning at a two-year-old level and was placed in "A House." D.S. had also been removed from his mother’s custody as a result of an abuse and neglect proceeding and, thus, was referred to Potomac by the...