Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Monongahela Power Company (“Mon Power”) filed a petition with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia ("Commission") to approve a generation resource transaction between it and Allegheny Energy Supply, LLC (“AE Supply”). The transaction consisted of Mon Power’s acquisition of AE Supply’s interest in the Harrison Power Station (“the plant”) and Mon Power’s recovery of a portion of its investment in that acquisition. The Commission approved a $257 million acquisition adjustment in the purchase price of the plant and allowed Mon Power, under certain conditions, to pass the acquisition adjustment to its customers in the rates that customers pay for electricity. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s order, holding that the Commission’s findings were not contrary to or unsupported by the evidence and were not arbitrary, and the Commission’s application of the law was consistent with Commission precedent. View "W. Va. Citizen Action Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W. Va." on Justia Law

Respondents were five employees of the State covered by the Public Employees Retirement System who actively served in the United States military during several recognized periods of armed conflict and were honorably discharged from the military. Respondents sought military service credit available through W. Va. Code 5-10-15 based on their military service. The West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board denied Respondents’ requests for military service credit for service occurring periods of armed conflict other than limited exceptions. On appeal, the circuit court ruled in favor of Respondents and granted each of their military service credit requests in full. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in holding that Respondents were entitled to the military service credit they sought. View "W. Va. Consolidated Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Wood" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJCFA), alleging that while housed at the Southern Regional Jail, she was raped by a correctional officer. The WVRJCFA moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The circuit court denied summary judgment, finding (1) disputed issues of material fact precluded a determination as to whether the WVRJCFA was vicariously liable for the alleged sexual assaults committed by the correctional officer; and (2) Plaintiff’s claims of negligent supervision, training, and retention did not encompass discretionary decisions in the administration of fundamental government policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the WVRJCFA was entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore, the circuit court erred in failing to grant summary judgment to the WVRJCFA. View "W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B." on Justia Law

The United Hospital Center, Inc. appealed from the State Tax Commissioner’s ruling regarding the 2011 assessment of ad valorem property taxes for the Hospital’s newly-constructed facility located in Bridgeport, asserting that, given the charitable purpose of its operations, it was entitled to exemption from property taxes. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondents, concluding that the Hospital was not entitled to a property tax exemption because the Bridgeport location was not physically housing and treating patients on July 1, 2010, the date used by law for property tax assessment purposes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a healthcare corporation that qualifies as a charitable organization under federal law, whose construction of a replacement hospital facility is substantially complete on the legal date of assessment, and who has significant departmental staff on site, comes within the spirit, purpose, and intent of exempting charitable organizations from ad valorem taxation under the statutory exemptions at issue. View "United Hosp. Ctr. v. Romano" on Justia Law

The Acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (the Commissioner) affirmed the revocation of Michael Doonan's driver's license for second offense DUI. Doonan sought review of the revocation order in the Wood County Circuit Court. After notifying the court that Doonan had moved out of state, Doonan's counsel requested that the matter be transferred to the Kanawha County Circuit Court given the statutory requirement that a petition for review must be filed either in the Kanawha County Circuit Court or the circuit court of the county in which the petitioner resides. The Commissioner objected, arguing that the Wood County Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the administrative appeal and thus lacked the authority to transfer the matter. The Wood County Circuit Court granted Doonan's request and ordered that the case be transferred. Thereafter, the Commissioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit the Kanawha County Circuit Court from accepting jurisdiction of Doonan's administrative appeal. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that because the Wood County Circuit Court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction over Doonan's appeal of the Commissioner's revocation order, it lacked the authority to transfer the matter to the Kanawha County Circuit Court. View "State ex rel. Dale v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed to receive food stamp benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as a separated spouse in a one-person household. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) determined that Petitioner and her husband (Husband) were living together for seventeen months after Petitioner filed to receive food stamps and sent Petitioner a notice of overpayment. Petitioner requested a hearing, and a hearing examiner affirmed the DHHR's overpayment claim. The circuit court affirmed, finding that Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to support her claim that she and Husband had separate residences. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded for entry of an order granting Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari and dismissing the DHHR's overpayment claim, holding that the DHHR failed to prove that Petitioner and Husband lived together during the seventeen month time period of the overpayment claim, and the claim should have been dismissed at the conclusion of DHHR's evidence. View "Hudson v. Bowling" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a licensed physical therapist and the owner of a therapy center that operated two facilities. The West Virginia Board of Physical Therapy revoked Petitioner's license for failure to properly supervise physical therapist assistants and physical therapy aides employed by him. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly found that Petitioner failed to directly supervise a physical therapy aide who was performing patient treatment; but (2) the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioner failed appropriately to supervise a physical therapist assistant who was performing patient treatment. Remanded. View "Sorongon v. W. Va. Bd. of Physical Therapy" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involved tax assessments for Petitioner's property. In the first appeal, Petitioner challenged the 2010 tax assessment to his property. The Board of Review and Equalization determined that Petitioner's appeal was not timely filed, and the circuit court affirmed. In the second appeal, Petitioner sought to adjust the 2011 assessment of his property, asserting that the Assessor erred in using a cost approach analysis to determine the value of the property to be $7.5 million. The Board ordered that the assessed value be reduced to approximately $6.5 million. The circuit court affirmed the Board's reduction in value. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's orders pertaining to both the 2010 and 2011 assessments, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioner's appeal of the 2010 tax assessment was untimely; and (2) the Board abused its discretion in utilizing a hybrid income approach to adjust the 2011 assessment, and because Petitioner failed to establish that the Assessor's cost approach assessment was erroneous, the 2011 tax assessment for the property should be adjusted to reflect the Assessor's initial cost approach assessment value. View "Lee Trace LLC v. Raynes" on Justia Law

Respondents, owners of coal-bearing properties in Taylor County, challenged tax assessments on their properties during the 2010 tax year. The County Assessor challenged the State Tax Commissioner's appraisals of Respondents' property in hearings before the Board of Equalization and Review after she had previously accepted those appraisals. The Board of Equalization and Review accepted the Assessor's proposed changes and changed the valuations of Respondents' properties, thus increasing the natural resources property tax owed by Respondents. The circuit court reversed the Board's valuation changes, finding that the Assessor violated W. Va. Code 11-1C-10(g) by challenging the Commissioner's appraisals. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to section 11-1C-10(g), upon receiving the appraisal of natural resources property from the Commission, a county assessor may either accept or reject that proposal; (2) if the assessor rejects the appraisal, the assessor must show just cause for doing so; and (3) if the assessor accepts the appraisal, the assessor is foreclosed from later challenging the appraisal. View "Collett v. Eastern Royalty, LLC" on Justia Law

Amanda Dingess was arrested for DUI after Dingess failed three field sobriety tests. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently revoked Dingess's drivers license for the DUI. Dingess filed a request for an administrative hearing, contending that on the night of her arrest she had not driven a car and was not under the influence of alcohol. The Office of Administrative Appeals (OAH) found that the DMV had established that Dingess had operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol on the night of her arrest and upheld the DMV's revocation of Dingess's license. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the OAH erred in finding that Dingess had driven the car. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's reinstatement of Dingess's driving privileges, holding that that the circuit court failed to afford proper deference to the rulings made during the underlying administrative process and that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the administrative license revocation of Dingess. View "Dale v. Dingess" on Justia Law