A West Virginia court has reversed a lower court's summary judgment ruling in a medical malpractice case involving Samuel Hernandez and Zusmitha Arnesto against City Hospital, Inc., doing business as WVU Medicine/Berkeley Medical Center. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia ruled that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to allow their case to proceed to trial, particularly regarding allegations of negligence in Mr. Hernandez's post-surgical care.

The case stems from Mr. Hernandez's treatment following spinal surgery in March 2020. After the surgery, he experienced severe complications, including paralysis. The plaintiffs claim that the hospital staff failed to adequately assess Mr. Hernandez’s deteriorating condition and did not seek a second opinion before discharging him to rehabilitation. This alleged negligence is said to have resulted in permanent neurological damage.

The dispute began when Hernandez, who had been treated for a cervical spine injury, underwent surgery at City Hospital. Following the operation, he exhibited concerning symptoms, including inability to move his lower extremities. Despite these symptoms, the hospital staff discharged him without further intervention. Hernandez later underwent additional surgeries, which improved his condition slightly but left him wheelchair-bound.

Hernandez and Arnesto filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, alleging that the hospital’s staff breached the standard of care. They argued that the hospital staff failed to escalate Hernandez's post-operative condition through the appropriate channels and did not advocate for necessary medical assessments before his discharge. The plaintiffs sought to hold the hospital accountable for the alleged negligence that they believe led to Mr. Hernandez's permanent injuries.

The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of City Hospital in March 2025. The lower court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the alleged negligence and the injuries suffered by Mr. Hernandez. The court ruled that the expert testimony provided by the plaintiffs was speculative and did not meet the legal standards required to proceed.

However, the Intermediate Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court's assessment. The court noted that the plaintiffs had presented expert testimony indicating that if the hospital staff had escalated Mr. Hernandez's case, he would have had a greater than 25% chance of improved recovery. Chief Judge Greear, writing the opinion, stated, "Petitioners offered expert testimony as to causation that is sufficient to submit their claim to a jury."

The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' experts grounded their opinions in the hospital's own policies and procedures, which required staff to escalate clinical concerns. The court found that this evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the hospital's negligence was a proximate cause of Mr. Hernandez's injuries.

The ruling from the Intermediate Court of Appeals means that the case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings. This decision is significant as it allows the plaintiffs to present their case in front of a jury, which will determine whether the hospital's actions constituted medical malpractice.

The court's decision also highlights the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases, particularly regarding causation. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' experts provided sufficient evidence to allow a jury to infer that the hospital's failure to act appropriately contributed to Mr. Hernandez's injuries.

Moving forward, the case will be closely watched as it could set a precedent for how medical malpractice cases are handled in West Virginia, particularly regarding the burden of proof required from plaintiffs in establishing causation. The Intermediate Court of Appeals' ruling underscores the necessity for medical facilities to adhere to established protocols and standards of care to ensure patient safety.

As for the next steps, City Hospital may seek to appeal the ruling to the West Virginia Supreme Court. However, details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The plaintiffs are now preparing for the case to be retried in the lower court.