## Facts

- Robert S. McGraw presented to St. Joseph’s Hospital’s emergency room on May 10, 1991, complaining of shortness of breath and was admitted as an inpatient.
- On May 11, 1991, four hospital employees attempted to assist McGraw into bed; McGraw stated he warned them he was too heavy for them to lift safely and then felt himself falling.
- In the early morning of May 12, 1991, McGraw was found on the floor near his bed; he testified he fell out of bed.
- McGraw testified that on May 21, 1991, nurses and aides dropped him while attempting to place him into bed and then obtained male staff to lift him back into bed.
- McGraw was discharged on June 28, 1991.
- McGraw alleged the incidents caused a fractured neck and other bodily injuries.
- McGraw sued the hospital for negligence; after discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment based on McGraw’s lack of expert testimony on breach and causation.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the hospital, reasoning that West Virginia law required expert testimony to prove a health care provider’s violation of the standard of care.

## Issues

1. Whether a negligence claim against a hospital based on allegedly dropping a patient or failing to prevent a patient’s fall requires expert testimony as a matter of law.
2. Whether summary judgment is proper when the plaintiff lacks expert testimony but offers evidence of alleged mishandling and resulting injury that a lay jury could evaluate using common experience.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that expert testimony is not invariably required in actions against health care providers.
- The court concluded that allegations of dropping a patient during transfer or failing to prevent a patient from falling may be assessed by lay jurors without expert medical testimony.
- Applying de novo review of summary judgment, the court found the record could permit a rational jury to find negligence, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is reviewed de novo; it is appropriate only when the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party on an essential element.
- Once the moving party supports a summary-judgment motion, the nonmoving party must produce evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact or seek authorized relief to obtain needed evidence.
- Expert testimony is required when proof of breach depends on matters beyond ordinary lay understanding (e.g., medical diagnosis or technical treatment decisions).
- Expert testimony is not required when the alleged negligence falls within common knowledge and experience, including basic physical safety failures such as dropping a patient or failing to take reasonable precautions against an apparent fall risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hospital is not entitled to summary judgment solely because the plaintiff lacks an expert witness where the claim alleges obvious mishandling or inadequate fall prevention that a jury can evaluate using ordinary experience; the case was remanded for further proceedings.


McGraw v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 488 S.E.2d 389 (W. Va. 1997)