JUSTICE MAYNARD dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.

    2.    “Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

    3.    “It is presumed the legislature had a purpose in the use of every word, phrase and clause found in a statute and intended the terms so used to be effective, wherefore an interpretation of a statute which gives a word, phrase or clause thereof no function to perform, or makes it, in effect, a mere repetition of another word, phrase or clause thereof, must be rejected as being unsound, if it be possible so to construe the statute as a whole, as to make all of its parts operative and effective.” Syllabus point 7, Ex parte Watson, 82 W. Va. 201, 95 S.E. 648 (1918).

    4.    “'Each word of a statute should be given some effect and a statute must be construed in accordance with the import of its language. Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.' Syllabus point 6, in part, State ex rel. Cohen v. Manchin, 175 W. Va. 525, 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984).” Syllabus point 2, State v. Snodgrass, 207 W. Va. 631, 535 S.E.2d 475 (2000).

    5.    The West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code § 55- 7B-1, et seq., permits a third party to bring a cause of action against a health care provider for foreseeable injuries that were proximately caused by the health care provider's negligent treatment of a tortfeasor patient.

    6.    “The provisions of the Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1 to -11 (1986), govern actions falling within its parameters[.]” Syllabus point 3, in part, State ex rel. Weirton Medical Center v. Mazzone, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 30360 June 19, 2002).

    7.    In order to maintain a third party action under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, a plaintiff must establish the elements of proof contained in W. Va. Code § 55-7B-3 (1986) (Repl. Vol. 2000).

    This case comes before us upon certification from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. By order entered September 20, 2001,   (See footnote 1)  the district court presents the following certified question: “Does West Virginia's Medical Professional Liability Act provide a cause of action by a third party against a health care provider for foreseeable injuries to the third party proximately caused by the health care provider's negligent treatment of a patient/tortfeasor?” Upon a review of the record presented for appellate consideration, the parties' arguments, and the pertinent authorities, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. We conclude that the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act [hereinafter referred to as the “MPLA”], W. Va. Code § 55-7B-1, et seq., does permit a third party to bring a cause of action against a health care provider for foreseeable injuries that were proximately caused by the health care provider's negligent treatment of a tortfeasor patient. However, in order to maintain such a third party action under the MPLA, the plaintiff must establish the elements of proof contained in W. Va. Code § 55- 7B-3 (1986) (Repl. Vol. 2000).

    Dr. Srichai and Mr. Hoosier have had a physician-patient relationship since approximately 1980. The district court found that, during the seventeen year period immediately preceding the accident, Dr. Srichai had prescribed numerous medications for Mr. Hoosier, including several controlled substances for the management of pain, but that Dr. Srichai did not always verify that such medications were medically necessary. For example, various injuries with which Mr. Hoosier presented to the local emergency room were inconsistent with the range of motion he reported to Dr. Srichai during office visits, and which physical limitations Dr. Srichai found to exist. Moreover, following Mr. Hoosier's release from incarceration in October, 1995,   (See footnote 4)  during which he had been weaned from all medications, he presented to Dr. Srichai's office. At this visit, seven days after his release, Mr. Hoosier reported that he needed prescriptions for nine different medications that he had been taking while in jail, several of which were controlled pain management substances; it does not appear, however, that Dr. Srichai validated that such medications were necessary for the maintenance of Mr. Hoosier's health.

    As a result of the injuries they sustained in the accident with Mr. Hoosier, the plaintiffs   (See footnote 5)  filed suit in the Circuit Court of Logan County against Dr. Srichai and his employer, Community Health Foundation of Man, Inc. [hereinafter referred to as “CHF”], alleging medical professional liability resulting from the negligent prescription of controlled substances to a patient with a known prescription drug dependency. Mr. Hoosier was also named as a party defendant. On September 9, 1999, the action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia due to CHF's status as a federally funded program under the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts over claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act.   (See footnote 6) 

    Thereafter, Dr. Srichai and CHF moved to substitute the United States as the party defendant based upon CHF's position as an agent of the United States and Dr. Srichai's status as an employee thereof acting within the scope of his employment. In conjunction with the United States' substitution as the defendant to this proceeding, Dr. Srichai and CHF were dismissed from this action.

    Following various arguments by both parties regarding the justiciability of a third party cause of action under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, the district court, by order entered May 3, 2001, denied the United States' motion for summary judgment and preliminarily found that the MPLA permitted the plaintiffs' claims. Upon a bench trial, the district court concluded, by order entered August 23, 2001, that the plaintiffs had satisfactorily proven their entitlement to relief under the MPLA for injuries occasioned by Dr. Srichai's negligent treatment of Mr. Hoosier. Thereafter, by order entered September 20, 2001, the district court certified the above-quoted question of law to this Court, requesting this Court to determine whether a third party cause of action is permitted by the MPLA.

    The particular question that has been certified for our determination in the case sub judice requires us to interpret the provisions of the Medical Professional Liability Act. 

As such, we also accord a plenary review to this statutory inquiry. “Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Syl. pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). Accord State v. Paynter, 206 W. Va. 521, 526, 526 S.E.2d 43, 48 (1999) (“To the extent that we are asked to interpret a statute or address a question of law, our review is de novo.”); Syl. pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep't of West Virginia, 195 W. Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995) (“Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review.”). With these standards in mind, we proceed to consider the parties' arguments.

    As the matter presented for our determination concerns a question of statutory construction, we must first examine the statutory provisions upon which the plaintiffs base their right of recovery. W. Va. Code § 55-7B-1 (1986) (Repl. Vol. 2000) sets forth the purpose of the Medical Professional Liability Act [MPLA], in part,   (See footnote 8)  as recognizing:

        That as in every human endeavor the possibility of injury or death from negligent conduct commands that protection of the public served by health care providers be recognized as an important state interest;

        That our system of litigation is an essential component of this state's interest in providing adequate and reasonable compensation to those persons who suffer from injury or death as a result of professional negligence;

    . . . .

        Therefore, the purpose of this enactment is to provide for a comprehensive resolution of the matters and factors which the Legislature finds must be addressed to accomplish the goals set forth above. In so doing, the Legislature has determined that reforms in the common law and statutory rights of our citizens to compensation for injury and death . . . must be enacted together as necessary and mutual ingredients of the appropriate legislative response.

In recognizing the need for greater reparation of injuries occasioned by medical negligence, the Legislature further clarified the term “'[m]edical professional liability'” to “mean[] any liability for damages resulting from the death or injury of a person for any tort or breach of contract based on health care services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care provider or health care facility to a patient.” W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(d) (1986) (Repl. Vol. 2000). It is this definitional language differentiating between “a person” and “a patient” upon which the district court based its finding of a third party right of recovery. Our task, then, is to decide whether the above-quoted statutory language permits such a cause of action.

    “The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). To determine this legislative intent, we generally look to the precise language employed by the Legislature. “Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation.” Syl. pt. 2, State v. Elder, 152 W. Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968). Accord Syl. pt. 1, State v. Jarvis, 199 W. Va. 635, 487 S.E.2d 293 (1997) (“'A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent will not be interpreted by the courts but will be given full force and effect.' Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Epperly, 135 W. Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951).”). See also West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n v. Garretson, 196 W. Va. 118, 123, 468 S.E.2d 733, 738 (1996) (“A statute is interpreted on the plain meaning of its provision in the statutory context, informed when necessary by the policy that the statute was designed to serve.” (footnote and citation omitted)).

    Upon reading the definition of “medical professional liability” contained in W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(d), we are not left with the impression that its terms are ambiguous, confusing, or capable of more than one interpretation. Simply stated, this provision recognizes a health care provider's legal responsibility for damages, in tort or in contract, to a person who has sustained injuries or death as a result of such provider's provision of, or failure to provide, health care services to a patient. Despite the general clarity of this provision, however, the Legislature's use of the distinct terms “person” and “patient” gives us pause as only one of these words is defined in the MPLA's definitional section. See W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(e) (1986) (Repl. Vol. 2000) (defining “patient”). Therefore, we must ascertain whether the words “person” and “patient” employed in the definition of “medical professional liability” refer to separate individuals or whether these terms are synonymous. See Sizemore v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 202 W. Va. 591, 596, 505 S.E.2d 654, 659 (1998) (“'A statute is open to construction only where the language used requires interpretation because of ambiguity which renders it susceptible of two or more constructions or of such doubtful or obscure meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning.'” (quoting Hereford v. Meek, 132 W. Va. 373, 386, 52 S.E.2d 740, 747 (1949)) (emphasis added)).

    In defining the concept of “medical professional liability,” the Legislature employed both the word “person” and the term “patient”: “any liability for damages resulting from the death or injury of a person for any tort or breach of contract based on health care services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care provider or health care facility to a patient.” W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(d) (emphasis added). Ordinarily, when we construe a statute, we give effect to each word employed in a legislative enactment. “It has been a traditional rule of statutory construction that 'the Legislature is presumed to intend that every word used in a statute has a specific purpose and meaning[.]'” Keatley v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., 200 W. Va. 487, 495, 490 S.E.2d 306, 314 (1997) (quoting State ex rel. Johnson v. Robinson, 162 W. Va. 579, 582, 251 S.E.2d 505, 508 (1979)). In other words,

        [i]t is presumed the legislature had a purpose in the use of every word, phrase and clause found in a statute and intended the terms so used to be effective, wherefore an interpretation of a statute which gives a word, phrase or clause thereof no function to perform, or makes it, in effect, a mere repetition of another word, phrase or clause thereof, must be rejected as being unsound, if it be possible so to construe the statute as a whole, as to make all of its parts operative and effective.

Syl. pt. 7, Ex parte Watson, 82 W. Va. 201, 95 S.E. 648 (1918). Accord Mangus v. Ashley, 199 W. Va. 651, 658, 487 S.E.2d 309, 316 (1997) (“'“[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.”'” (quoting Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., 195 W. Va. 297, 312, 465 S.E.2d 399, 414 (1995) (quoting Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L. Ed. 2d 391, 397 (1992) (citations omitted)))); State ex rel. Ballard v. Vest, 136 W. Va. 80, 87, 65 S.E.2d 649, 653 (1951) (“We cannot assume in the absence of wording clearly indicating contrariwise that the Legislature would use words which are unnecessary, and use them in such way as to obscure, rather than clarify, the purposes which it had in mind in the enactment of the statute.”).

    Here we are faced with a rather unique situation: the word “patient” is statutorily defined, but the word “person” is not. Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(e), “'[p]atient'” refers to “a natural person who receives or should have received health care from a licensed health care provider under a contract, expressed or implied.” Absent a pertinent statutory definition for “person,”   (See footnote 9)  however, we must resort to the commonly accepted meaning of this word.

        “Each word of a statute should be given some effect and a statute must be construed in accordance with the import of its language. Undefined words and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.” Syllabus point 6, in part, State ex rel. Cohen v. Manchin, 175 W. Va. 525, 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984).

Syl. pt. 2, State v. Snodgrass, 207 W. Va. 631, 535 S.E.2d 475 (2000). Accord Syl. pt. 3, in part, Ohio Cellular RSA Ltd. P'ship v. Board of Pub. Works of West Virginia, 198 W. Va. 416, 481 S.E.2d 722 (1996) (“In the absence of any specific indication to the contrary, words used in a statute will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Syl. pt. 4, State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, V.F.W., 144 W. Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959) (“Generally the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary and familiar significance and meaning, and regard is to be had for their general and proper use.”).

    “The natural and obvious meaning of the word 'person' is a living human being.” Massachusetts v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 404, 177 N.E. 656, 659 (1931) (internal quotations and citations omitted). It is “a generic word of comprehensive nature . . . [that] includes human beings[.]” Illinois v. Guzzardo, 4 Ill. App. 2d 355, 360, 124 N.E.2d 39, 41 (1955) (citations omitted). Accord In re Searight's Estate, 87 Ohio App. 417, 426, 95 N.E.2d 779, 784 (1950) (defining person as “[a] human being” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Other authorities similarly define “person” as “a human being,”   (See footnote 10)  “[a]n individual human being; a man, woman, or child,”   (See footnote 11)  and “a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.”   (See footnote 12)  The common theme throughout all of these definitions is the interpretation of a “person” as a human being, without further qualification. By contrast, the Legislature has defined a “patient” as a person, i.e., human being, who has received, or should have received, “health care from a licensed health care provider.” See W. Va. Code § 55-7B-2(e). Because the general term “person” does not contain such a restriction or limitation, we conclude that the Legislature intended the words “person” and “patient” to refer to two distinct classifications of individuals, e.g., individuals generally and those individuals who have obtained medical care.

    Given this differentiation in terminology, it is apparent that the Legislature intended to allow individuals generally to recover damages for injuries attributable to medical professional liability regardless of whether they are actually “patients”.   (See footnote 13)  Accordingly, we hold that the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code § 55-7B-1, et seq., permits a third party to bring a cause of action against a health care provider for foreseeable injuries that were proximately caused by the health care provider's negligent treatment of a tortfeasor patient.   (See footnote 14)  The manner in which such a third party plaintiff may proceed with such an action is further governed by the requirements of the MPLA. “The provisions of the Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1 to -11 (1986), govern actions falling within its parameters[.]” Syl. pt. 3, in part, State ex rel. Weirton Med. Ctr. v. Mazzone, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 30360 June 19, 2002). Therefore, we hold further that, in order to maintain a third party action under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, a plaintiff must establish the elements of proof contained in W. Va. Code § 55-7B-3 (1986) (Repl. Vol. 2000).   (See footnote 15) 

    For the foregoing reasons, then, we answer in the affirmative the certified question posited by the district court. However, such third party cause of action must conform to the MPLA's requirements for the prosecution of medical professional liability claims generally.

                            Certified Question Answered.

        The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the citizens of this state are entitled to the best medical care and facilities available and that health care providers offer an essential and basic service which requires that the public policy of this state encourage and facilitate the provision of such service to our citizens:

        That as in every human endeavor the possibility of injury or death from negligent conduct commands that protection of the public served by health care providers be recognized as an important state interest;

        That our system of litigation is an essential component of this state's interest in providing adequate and reasonable compensation to those persons who suffer from injury or death as a result of professional negligence;

        That liability insurance is a key part of our system of litigation, affording compensation to the injured while fulfilling the need and fairness of spreading the cost of the risks of injury;

        That a further important component of these protections is the capacity and willingness of health care providers to monitor and effectively control their professional competency, so as to protect the public and ensure to the extent possible the highest quality of care;

        That it is the duty and responsibility of the Legislature to balance the rights of our individual citizens to adequate and reasonable compensation with the broad public interest in the provision of services by qualified health care providers who can themselves obtain the protection of reasonably priced and extensive liability coverage;

        That in recent years, the cost of insurance coverage has risen dramatically while the nature and extent of coverage has diminished, leaving the health care providers and the injured without the full benefit of professional liability insurance coverage;

        That many of the factors and reasons contributing to the increased cost and diminished availability of professional liability insurance arise from the historic inability of this state to effectively and fairly regulate the insurance industry so as to guarantee our citizens that rates are appropriate, that purchasers of insurance coverage are not treated arbitrarily, and that rates reflect the competency and experience of the insured health care providers.

        Therefore, the purpose of this enactment is to provide for a comprehensive resolution of the matters and factors which the Legislature finds must be addressed to accomplish the goals set forth above. In so doing, the Legislature has determined that reforms in the common law and statutory rights of our citizens to compensation for injury and death, in the regulation of rate making and other practices by the liability insurance industry, and in the authority of medical licensing boards to effectively regulate and discipline the health care providers under such board must be enacted together as necessary and mutual ingredients of the appropriate legislative response.