required under the facts of this case to establish a deviation from the standard of care with regard to the act of negligence — the wheelchair fall — but that an expert would be necessary to establish that this act of negligence was the proximate cause of Appellant’s physical and emotional injuries. Based on Appellant’s admission that he had “failed to secure an expert to demonstrate proximate cause within the time frame allotted by the Court’s scheduling Order” combined with its determination that an expert was necessary, the trial court granted summary judgment to CAMC. Appellant seeks a reversal of this grant of summary judgment. ■ II.Standard of Review As with all summary judgment rulings, our review is de novo. See Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (<HOLDING>). In syllabus point two of Painter we
holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal holding that rule 12b6 disposition is reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo