Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked Respondent's driver's license for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The circuit court reversed the DMV's order, reasoning that (1) the DMV failed to prove Respondent's alcohol content at the actual time of driving the vehicle; (2) the DMV did not comply with Muscatell v. Cline, which requires a hearing officer to address credibility issues in a reasoned manner; and (3) the failure of the investigating officer to appear at the license revocation hearing required the dismissal of the case against Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the breath test was administered within two hours of Respondent's arrest, the evidence resulting therefrom was admissible as prima facie evidence that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol while driving; (2) Muscatell's requirement in this case was adequately satisfied by the hearing examiner; and (3) the circuit court improperly relied on an outdated rule in finding that dismissal of the case was required where the arresting officer was not present at the hearing. Remanded for reinstatement of the DMV order revoking Respondent's driver's license. View "Dale v. Veltri " on Justia Law

Hospital sought full tax refunds in relation to Hospital's attempt to reclassify certain services from either "inpatient" or "outpatient" hospital services to "physicians' services" for purposes of the West Virginia Health Care Provider Tax Act. The Office of Tax Appeals denied Hospital's request, and the circuit court affirmed. In seeking to reclassify items of overhead as "physicians' services," Hospital focused on its use of certain billing codes that were required by federal law. The Tax Commission argued that Hospital's reliance on these billing codes to identify what qualifies as "physicians' services" under the Act was misplaced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the overhead items at issue did not qualify as "physicians' services" under the Act. View "Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Lorensen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a registered professional nurse, was terminated from her employment when her employer concluded that Petitioner had unlawfully obtained prescription narcotics for personal use or distribution to others. In 2008, Petitioner's employer filed a complaint against Petitioner in that regard with the Board of Examiners for Registered Professional Nurses. Petitioner was subsequently hired at another medical center, and her employment was terminated. In 2009, Petitioner's second employer filed a complaint with the Board, suggesting that Petitioner had unlawfully obtained prescription narcotics for personal use or distribution to others. In 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition asking the Supreme Court to direct the Board to dismiss the 2008 and 2009 complaints, alleging that the Board's continuances of the administrative hearings scheduled to resolve the two complaints were contrary to law, had deprived Petitioner of substantial resources, and had improperly delayed the entry of a final administrative decision. The Supreme Court granted the writ and dismissed the two complaints, holding that the Board effectively denied Petitioner an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the allegations against her. View "State ex rel. Fillinger v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

Employee resigned from her employment with Employer after Employee failed to accommodate Employee's responsibilities regarding daycare for her children. Employee filed for unemployment compensation benefits. An ALJ found Employee was eligible for benefits. The Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia reversed the award of benefits, finding that Employee's departure was not for good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. The circuit court reversed, concluding that Employee was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because Employee had terminated her employment for good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the decision of the Board of Review, holding that Employee terminated her employment voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. View "Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Epling" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the valuation and corresponding tax assessment of seventy-nine condominium units owned by Pope Properties / Charleston LLC (Pope Properties). The Kanawha Assessor determined that for ad valorem tax purposes for 2011, the seventy-nine units should be valued as follows: $63,700 for each of Pope Properties' sixteen one-bedroom units and $70,000 for each of its sixty-three two-bedroom units. The Board of Equalization and Review upheld the determination. Pope Properties appealed, contending that the units should be valued at $42,000 for each of the one-bedroom units and $49,000 for each of the two-bedroom units. At issue on appeal was the Assessor's use of the market data approach in determining the value of the units rather than the income approach to valuation advocated by Pope Properties. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Assessor did not err in choosing or applying the market data approach in this case. View "Pope Props. / Charleston LLC v. Kanawha County Assessor " on Justia Law

In 2004, the Berkeley County Water District and Sewer District filed requests with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to charge capacity improvement fees (CIFs) due to rapid population growth in the county. The PSC approved the requested CIFs. Petitioners subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court, seeking relief from paying the CIFs. The circuit court found that the PSC lacked jurisdiction to establish the CIFs. However, the Supreme Court found Petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the PSC and reversed. Subsequently, the PSC discontinued the CIFs, finding that the Sewer District and Water District no longer satisfied the criteria for charging the CIFs. Thereafter, the PSC granted Petitioners' motion to deny the Water and Sewer Districts' petitions for reconsideration. Petitioners appealed to challenge errors they alleged were contained in the PSC's final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners were judicially estopped from challenging the errors. View "Larry V. Faircloth Realty, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

EQT Production Company was the lessee of an oil and gas lease. Matthew Hamblet was the surface owner of a parcel of property included within EQT's leasehold. EQT filed a permit application with the Office of Oil and Gas of the West Virginia EPA (DEP) for a shallow well targeting a Marcellus formation. The DEP issued the permit requested by EQT. Subsequently, Hamblet filed a petition for appeal of the issuance of the well permit in the circuit court. The DEP and EQT filed motions to dismiss the petition contending that Hamblet did not have the right to appeal the issuance of the permit. The circuit court denied the motions, concluding that Hamblet had the right to appeal the permit, but submitted its ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held (1) upon consideration of the court of appeals' opinion in State ex rel. Lovejoy v. Callaghan and the relevant statutes, a surface owner is not permitted to seek judicial review of the DEP's issuance of a well work permit for a horizontal Marcellus well; and (2) given this fact, the Court had no basis to find Hamblet had a right to appeal the well work permitted issued by the DEP. View "Martin v. Hamblet" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed an order of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review through which Petitioner's permanent total disability (PTD) award previously granted was suspended and vacated. Petitioner challenged the Board's determination, upon a reopening of his PTD claim, that he was capable of gainful employment. Petitioner argued that his former employer, Lowe's, violated the statute that authorized the claim reopening because Lowe's was involved in the reevaluation process, and therefore, the order vacating his PTD award was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that notwithstanding statutory language that suggests otherwise, an order issued by the Board that modifies or vacates a previous award of PTD is not subject to challenge based on the involvement of a self-insured former employer in the reevaluation process, given that the participation of the self-insured former employer is clearly anticipated and authorized by the provisions of W. Va. Cod 23-4-16(d). View "Justice v. W. Va. Office Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia and the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, sought to compel Respondents, Lackawanna Transport Company and Solid Waste Services, Inc., to comply with an order entered by the Public Service Commission requiring them to produce certain information and financial records pertinent to an ongoing investigation concerning the Wetzel County Landfill. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of mandamus, holding (1) a writ of mandamus is appropriate in this case, as Respondents were legally required to produce the requested information; and (2) while arguably there was another remedy available in this instance through the circuit court, that remedy was not adequate given the unique circumstances given here. View "State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Lackawann Transp. Co." on Justia Law

In 2010, the Surface Mine Board ordered the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to pay the Hominy Creek Preservation Association's attorney fees for work performed in two administrative appeals. Eighty-two days after the Board granted the fee award to the Association, the DEP appealed the Board's order to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed, finding that the Association was not entitled to recovery attorney fees from the DEP. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order reversing the fee award and reinstated the Board's order, holding that the DEP failed to file a timely appeal of the Board's 2010 order. View "Hominy Creek Pres. Ass'n v. W. Va. Dep't of Env't Prot." on Justia Law