Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Government & Administrative Law
Goff v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r
Petitioner, a police officer with the Department of Natural Resources, lost his right eye as a result of a workplace injury. Petitioner was awarded thirty-three percent permanent partial disability for the “total and irrevocable loss of sight in one eye” under W. Va. Code 23-5-6(f) but was awarded nothing for the permanent impairment caused by his continuing problems with infections and related conditions in his eye socket or for the permanent disfigurement caused by his eye injury. The Office of Judges affirmed the Claims Administrator’s award of no additional permanent partial disability above and beyond the statutory thirty-three percent disability award. The West Virginia Worker Compensation Board of Review affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board erred as a matter of law in its application of section 23-5-6(f). Remanded for further development of medical evidence related to what, if any, additional award Petitioner should receive for permanent disability caused by the physical removal of his right eye beyond the loss of vision in that eye. View "Goff v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r" on Justia Law
W. Va. Racing Comm’n v. Reynolds
The West Virginia Racing Commission suspended the occupational permits of each of seven jockeys for thirty days and imposed a $1,000 fine on each of the jockeys for certain rules governing horse racing. The circuit court reversed and vacated the Commission’s order, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Commission’s factual findings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the fact that the circuit court’s review of the evidence resulted in the circuit court reaching an alternative conclusion based on substantial evidence was not a valid reason to reverse the Commission’s findings; and (2) the Commission’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. View "W. Va. Racing Comm’n v. Reynolds" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Gaming Law, Government & Administrative Law
Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. King
Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company submitted to the Virginia Insurance Commissioner a rate, form, and product filing seeking approval for a new product endorsement entitled Rate Protection Endorsement (RPE). The Commissioner approved the Erie filing, as amended. Respondent, an Erie insured, filed an administrative complaint against Erie seeking a determination as to whether the Commissioner’s approval of Erie’s RPE should be withdrawn. The Commissioner denied Respondent relief. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Commissioner was statutorily required to withdraw approval of Erie’s RPE. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court engaged in an improper re-examination of Erie’s rate and form policy filing for its RPE that was approved by the Commissioner, and therefore, the circuit court erred in reversing the decision of the Commissioner. View "Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. King" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law, Insurance Law
Reed v. Conniff
After DUI and hit and run charges were filed against Robert Conniff, the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) notified Conniff that his driver’s license was being revoked for DUI. After a fifth and final hearing, the DMV revoked Conniff’s driving privileges. The circuit court reversed the final order of the DMV and reinstated Conniff’s driver’s license, concluding that the DMV had no authority to continue the initial revocation hearing in view of the fact that the DMV erred in securing the attendance of the investigating officer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that the continuance of the original hearing was lacking in good cause and therefore violated Conniff’s due process rights; but (2) the cumulative effect of multiple continuances and overall delay in this matter warranted an award of attorney fees and costs. View "Reed v. Conniff" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law
Waugh v. Morgan County Emergency Med. Servs. Bd., Inc.
Morgan County Emergency Medical Services Board, Inc. is authorized by the County Commission of Morgan County to collect delinquent ambulance service fees. The Board brought an action against Petitioner, the owner of a mobile home park, alleging that Petitioner owned delinquent special emergency ambulance service fees on rental units in Petitioner’s mobile home park. The circuit court granted the Board all of the relief it requested. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that (1) the Board may bring an action to collect delinquent special emergency ambulance service fees; (2) an owner and a renter may be jointly and severally liable for paying the emergency ambulance service fee; and (3) the county ordinance does not violate W. Va. Code 7-15-17 by assessing Petitioner ambulance service fees for units that were vacant on the date of assessment. View "Waugh v. Morgan County Emergency Med. Servs. Bd., Inc." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law
Curry v. W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd.
Petitioner served as general counsel to the West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WVDA) for approximately twenty-five years. The WVDA submitted employer and employee contributions to the Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) on Petitioner’s behalf for twenty-one years. In 2013, the the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (“Board”) notified Petitioner that he was not eligible to participate in PERS because he was not a full-time employee. The Board subsequently entered a final order denying Petitioner’s request to participate in PERS on the grounds that he was not a full-time employee. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was statutorily prohibited from participating in PERS because he never worked more than approximately three hundred hours in any one year. View "Curry v. W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd." on Justia Law
Reed v. Riner
The West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked Robin Riner’s drivers license due to her failure to submit to a secondary chemical test. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the revocation for refusing to submit to the secondary chemical test, finding that the arresting officer failed to comply with the implied consent statute. The circuit court affirmed the OAH’s final order. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court to the extent it affirmed the OAH’s decision to reinstate Riner’s drivers license despite her refusal to submit to the secondary chemical test, holding that the arresting officer complied with his statutory duties under the implied consent statute. Remanded for the reinstatement of the revocation of Riner’s drivers license. View "Reed v. Riner" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law
State ex rel. Miles v. W. Va. Bd. of Registered Prof’l Nurses
Petitioner, who worked as a registered nurse at a Hospital, was terminated for allegedly violating the Hospital’s narcotic waste policies. Petitioner self-reported her termination to the West Virginia Board of Registered Professional Nurses. The Board issued a notice of complaint on April 2, 2013. On August 14, 2013, the Board issued an interim status report to the Hospital. A hearing was eventually set for January 20, 2015 but was continued until February 19, 2015. Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of prohibition asserting that the Board’s failure to resolve the complaint against her within one year from the date of the status report pursuant to W. Va. Code 30-1-5(c) divested it of jurisdiction to proceed on the complaint. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s requested relief, holding that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in this case by failing to comply with the statutory mandates of section 30-1-5(c). View "State ex rel. Miles v. W. Va. Bd. of Registered Prof’l Nurses" on Justia Law
Jones v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys.
Patricia Jones (Patricia) and Danny Akers (Danny) divorced. Thereafter, Judy Vannoy Akers (Judy) and Danny married. After Danny died, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Board (Board) awarded Judy disability retirements. Patricia argued that she was entitled to Danny’s West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirement benefits based on the provision for those benefits in her divorce decree. The Board denied benefits on the grounds that there was not an enforceable qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in effect at the time when the survivor benefits were issued to Judy. Both Patricia and Judy challenged the Board’s rulings. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court reversed after invoking its equitable powers to permit the posthumous entry of a QDRO that provided for distribution of Patricia’s equitable interest in the portion of Danny’s retirement assets recognized as marital property, holding (1) the Board erred in granting posthumous disability benefits to Judy rather than preretirement benefits; and (2) Patricia was entitled to seek Danny’s PERS benefits. View "Jones v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law
Reed v. Hall
Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and refused to submit to a secondary breath test. Respondent’s driver’s license was subsequently revoked by the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles for both DUI and the refusal to submit to the designated chemical test. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) rescinded the driver’s license revocation on the grounds that (1) Respondent was misled to believe that he had a choice as to whether he wanted to take a breath test or a blood test, and therefore, revocation for refusing the secondary chemical test was inappropriate; and (2) Respondent was effectively denied his right to obtain an independent blood test. The circuit court upheld the OAH’s order. The Supreme Court found that Respondent’s license revocations for refusal to submit to the secondary breath test were proper but his license revocations for DUI were erroneous, holding (1) the lower tribunals erroneously concluded that Respondent had a rational basis for perceiving that he had a choice between the breath test and the blood test, and therefore, revocation for refusing the secondary chemical test was appropriate; and (2) Respondent was denied his statutory and due process rights to have his blood tested independently. View "Reed v. Hall" on Justia Law