CHARLESTON, W.Va.— Charleston Area Medical Center filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit case against them Wednesday in front of Judge Dave Hardy.
Last year, nine former CAMC employees, filed individual lawsuits against CAMC for firing them after CAMC announced in August 2021 that they would be requiring all of their employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. They did however allow the employees to file for religious or medical exemptions. Those nine employees all filed for a religious exemption, in which they were denied and given no means to appeal the decision.
Eric Kinder, lawyer representing CAMC said that the reason for the motion to dismiss was because of the protections under the Covid 19 Protection Act.
Eric Kinder
“Not withstanding any laws to the contrary, expect for that’s provided by this article there is no claim against any person, business, healthcare facilities, healthcare provider, for loss, damage, physical injury or death arising from COVID-19, COVID-19 care or impactive care,” Kinder said at Wednesday’s hearing.
He also said the decision on whether or not the COVID 19 Job Protection act applied to this case or not, was decided by the Intermediate Courts of Appeals for the case Melissa Bond vs. United Physicians Care, Inc. DBA Salem Family Healthcare when it was in front of the ICA. However, the case was remanded back to lower court because the plaintiff in the case appealed the motion, and a judge in Harrison County Circuit Court reversed the dismissal.
“The ICA decision was earlier in the year, but it was remanded back to circuit court in Harrison County, and reviewed the motion to dismiss on exactly this issue Judge McCarthy denied it,” Kinder said.
Judge Hardy further explained what the ICA found and what Judge McCarthy found.
“So, the ICA case stands with the idea that a body of law, applies but when it came back down on remand Judge McCarthy allowed it to survive a motion of dismiss based on the exception,” Hardy said.
And while they are waiting for Judge McCarthy’s written opinion on whether the COVID-19 Job Protection Act applies, Judge Hardy wasn’t going to make a decision on whether to grant the motion to dismiss or not.
Also at the court hearing, Judge Hardy went over the order to consolidate the lawsuits, in which he signed back in April, into one lawsuit only for the purpose of discovery in the case, not for if they were to go to trial and because one of the plaintiffs was left off of the order.
Scott Evans, lawyer representing the nine plaintiffs said that the reasoning behind the consolidation order saying that they would consolidate the lawsuits to one lawsuit except for trial was because it gave him nine tries at a trial.
Scott Evans
“It gives me nine trials to hit it, and I’m not saying that it won’t come to the conclusion that I want to try them together,” Evans said.
Judge Hardy requested that the new consolidation order included the plaintiff who was left off and ordered that it be added that they would try them all together if they end up at trial.