West Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Jeffrey V. Mehalic : Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    The focus of the medical malpractice litigation against discredited surgeon John A. King has moved to federal court as the parties deal with the effect of King’s bankruptcy.  Here is my post from last week about the removal to federal court of some (as of that point) of the cases against King.

    Last week, United States Bankruptcy Judge Thomas B. Bennett (who formerly practiced in Charleston, West Virginia) of the Northern District of Alabama granted the motions filed by eight plaintiffs and lifted the automatic stay against litigation in their cases against King that had been pending in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia.  King consented to the stay being lifted in the cases.  Here are one of the motions to lift the stay and the order granting the motion.

    Yesterday, Teays Valley Health Services, LLC f/k/a Teays Valley Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Putnam General Hospital, HCA Inc., Healthtrust, Inc.-The Hospital Company, and Hospital Corp., LLC, who are also defendants in the lawsuits against King, filed motions in the first ten cases set for trial (which include the eight cases in which the plaintiffs filed their motions) to lift the automatic stay in order to pursue their cross-claims against King.  Here is one of the motions filed by the defendants.  The defendants’ motions have been set for a final hearing on January 17, 2008.

    Meanwhile, in federal court in West Virginia, the defendants have removed the 124 cases (121 cases according to the plaintiffs) against King to the Southern District at Charleston, where they have been assigned to Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.  Judge Copenhaver conducted a case management conference on December 20 and entered this order on December 21, which designated one of the cases as the lead case and established a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ consolidated motion to remand and the defendants’ response.  Here are the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and memorandum in support, which were filed today.  The defendants’ response is due by January 28, 2008, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due within ten days thereafter.  Judge Copenhaver’s order also stays all of the cases involved in the removal, which means all of the cases against King.

    In support of their motion, the plaintiffs argue that the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) (regarding the removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases) and alternatively because of principles of abstention and equity.  I expect that the court will rule promptly on the plaintiffs' motion, probably in late February or early March.  If the court grants the motion to remand, then the first group of cases can be rescheduled for trial, as the Bankruptcy Court has lifted the stay in those cases and there is no other impediment (at this point) to trial.