Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner injured her wrist and shoulder at work while assisting a contract employee lift a box of clothes that had been left in Petitioner's office. The Workers' Compensation Board of Review (BOR) denied Petitioner's claim for benefits because Petitioner's injury was not attributable to an injury or disease "in the course of and resulting from" her employment as required by W. Va. Code 23-4-1(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR's decision was neither in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record, nor the result of erroneous conclusions of law. View "Morton v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm'r" on Justia Law

Respondent's vehicle was stopped for swerving and crossing the centerline. Respondent then failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving under the influence. While in the town hall, the officer performed a chemical test of Respondent's breath, and the results indicated Respondent had a blood-alcohol content level of 0.105. Respondent's driver's license was subsequently revoked for six months. The circuit court reversed the Division of Motor Vehicle's (DMV) order and reinstated Respondent's revoked driver's license, concluding that the DMV's revocation order was biased, prejudicial, and reached in a preconceived manner. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the revocation order, holding that the facts provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Respondent was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and thus represented an adequate basis for the DMV to revoke Respondent's driver's license. View "Dale v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Respondent was employed by Petitioner. After Respondent was terminated, she filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated against. The director of operations for the Commission issued a finding that no probable cause was found in Respondent's complaint and ordered it dismissed. After the assistant attorney general (Sheridan) conducted an administrative review hearing, the Commission found probable cause was alleged in the complaint. Sheridan then filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent in proceedings before the Commission. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify Sheridan, arguing that he was conflicted from representing Respondent because he had acted in a judicial capacity while conducting the administrative review. The administrative law judge denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court (1) declined to issue the writ insofar as it requested that Respondent's claims be dismissed; (2) declined to order that a subpoena be issued to allow Petitioner to access documents reviewed during the administrative review; but (3) issued the writ to state that Sheridan could not represent Respondent in proceedings before the Commission. View "State ex rel. Ten S. Mgmt. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Bunch Company filed consumer complaint, alleging that when BrickStreet Mutual Insurance Company became its insurer, BrickStreet wrongfully included a charge for the expense of an agent commission in the workers' compensation premium. The West Virginia Insurance Commissioner denied relief, upholding the previously approved rates. The circuit court reversed and vacated the Commissioner's administrative order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commissioner did not err in allowing BrickStreet to charge Bunch for a non-incurred agent commission; (2) the Commission properly found the insurance rates at issue were reasonable, and the trial court encroached upon a matter that has been expressly delegated to the executive branch by ignoring the deference the Commissioner was entitled to in connection with the interpretation of its own regulation; and (3) this case did not present any factual disputes requiring the Commissioner to hold a hearing. View "W. Va. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bunch Co." on Justia Law

Respondent's employment with the West Virginia Department of Transportation (DOH) was terminated because Respondent allegedly accessed and attempted to access pornographic websites using a computer owned by the State. Emphasizing that the computer was located in a common area for the use of several workers, Respondent denied that he was the offending employee. The Public Employees Grievance Board found in favor of Respondent and directed the DOH to reinstate him to his employment. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DOH did not carry its burden of proving the allegations against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence. View "W. Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Litten" on Justia Law

The City of Fairmont owned and operated Fairmont General Hospital (FGH) until 1985. In 1984, the City Council adopted section 4.06 of the Fairmont City Charter, which provided that the board of directors of the hospital would be appointed by the Council. FGH then became a private, not-for-profit corporation. In 2010, FGH amended its bylaws to provide for appointment of its board members by the board itself, rather than the Council. FGH also amended its articles of incorporation to comport with the amended bylaws. After the Council challenged FGH's authority to make appointments to the hospital board, FGH filed an action seeking a declaration that section 4.06 of the city charter was no longer applicable to the hospital. The City and Council counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that FGH's amended bylaws were void. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither the City nor the Council had standing to challenge, either as ultra vires or as a violation of the city charter, the actions of the hospital's board in amending its bylaws, appointing new members to the board, and amending the articles of incorporation. View "The City of Fairmont v. Fairmont Gen. Hosp., Inc." on Justia Law

The Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles revoked the driving privileges of Respondents for driving under the influence of alcohol. After Respondents filed petitions for review of the administrative orders, the circuit courts granted Respondents' motions for stay of the revocation. The Commissioner sought to prohibit the circuit courts from entering orders staying the license revocations of Respondents, alleging that the circuit courts exceeded their jurisdiction and violated the requirements of W. Va. 17C-5A-2(s) and applicable case law by failing to (1) require Respondents to present evidence that there was a substantial probability that Respondents would prevail on the merits and the Respondents would suffer irreparable harm if the orders were not stayed, (2) provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in the orders, and (3) limit the stays to 150 days. The Supreme Court granted the Commission relief in prohibition, holding that the stay orders violated the requirements of section 17C-5A-2(s) and applicable case law, and therefore, the circuit courts exceeded their jurisdiction in granting Respondents' respective motions. View "State ex rel. Miller v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner was employed as a custodian by Respondent, the Board of Education of the County of Raleigh under a 210-day regular contract and thirty-day summer contract that did not include paid vacation days. Petitioner filed a grievance against Respondent in 2007, asserting that Respondent violated the uniformity provisions in W. Va. Code 18A-4-5b and the discrimination prohibition of W. Va. Code 6C-2-2(d) by employing a similarly situated custodian with a 261-day contract that included paid vacation days. The West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board found Petitioner established that Respondent violated sections 18A-4-5b and 6C-2-2(d) but denied both back pay and prospective relief to Petitioner. The circuit court affirmed the denial of relief. Petitioner appealed, seeking lost wages for the school year after which Petitioner initiated his grievance. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of relief to Petitioner, holding that an employee who holds a 210-day regular contract and a thirty-day contract to perform related duties during a summer school term does not perform like assignments and duties with a school service employee who holds a 261-day regular contract for the purpose of the uniformity provisions found in section 18A-4-5b. View "Patterson v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Raleigh" on Justia Law

After Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) notified Petitioner that his license would be revoked for DUI. Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing. Because Petitioner's arresting officer did not appear at the hearing, the Commissioner of the DMV reversed the order of revocation and dismissed the case. Petitioner then pled guilty to DUI. When the DMV received notice of the guilty plea, it revoked Petitioner's license for six months. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of prohibition. The circuit court dissolved the revocation order and reinstated Petitioner's license, finding that the Commissioner's order rescinding the previous administrative revocation served to reinstate Petitioner's license and that subsequent revocation was prohibited by operation of W. Va. Code 17C-5A-1a(d). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and application of section 17C-5A-1a(d) to reverse Petitioner's mandatory revocation. View "Dale v. Knopp" on Justia Law

Brandon White's license was revoked by the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following an unsuccessful challenge before the Office of Administrative Hearings, White filed an appeal in circuit court. The circuit court found White's appeal to be timely. The Commission filed a petition for relief in prohibition, contending that White's appeal was not timely filed, and therefore, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring White's appeal timely. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that White's appeal was not filed within the statutory time limits and, consequently, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the appeal timely and was prohibited from further consideration of White's appeal. View "State ex rel. Comm'r, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law