Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In two consolidated original jurisdiction actions, petitioners Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mylan Technologies, Inc. sought writs of prohibition in two actions pending in the circuit court of Kanawha County. In each action, the circuit court denied a motion filed by petitioners to dismiss the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, asserting that each of the circuit judges erred in applying the forum non conveniens statute, W. Va. Code 56-1-1a, and seeking to prohibit the circuit court from refusing to dismiss their actions. In a show cause order, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the eight factors listed for consideration in Section 56-1-1a. The Court, therefore, granted the writs and remanded the actions. View "State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib" on Justia Law

In a medical professional liability action, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants James and Debbie MacDonald, which included an award of $1,500,000 for noneconomic loss. In accordance with W. Va. Code 55-7B-8, the circuit court reduced the noneconomic damages award to $500,000, finding that James suffered a permanent and substantial physical deformity warranting application of the higher cap amount. On appeal, the MacDonalds argued that the cap contained in the statute was unconstitutional, and therefore, the circuit court erred in reducing the jury's verdict. Appellees, Sayeed Ahmed, M.D. and City Hospital, asserted a cross-assignment of error, arguing that the $250,000 cap should have been applied in this case. City Hosptial also cross assigned as error the circuit court's denial of its motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, and motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute as amended in 2003 was constitutional, (2) the circuit court did not err in applying the higher cap, and (3) the circuit court did not err in denying the motions filed by City Hospital. View "MacDonald v. City Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Elgene Phillips was driving his truck when the truck hydroplaned, ran off the road, and rolled over. Phillips died as a result of the accident. As administratrix of the decedent's estate, petitioner Shelia Haynes filed a wrongful death action, alleging that the seatbelt in the decedent's trunk was defective. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the decedent's truck, and Autoliv, the manufacturer of the seatbelt, were named as defendants. The parties settled for $150,000, but the agreement did not contain an apportionment between the two defendants regarding who was responsible for that amount. After Chrysler declared bankruptcy, petitioner filed a motion to sever claims against Chrysler and a motion to compel Autoliv to pay the entire amount of the settlement. The circuit court denied petitioner's motions, and as a result petitioner received only $65,000 in settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) the terms of the contract were unambiguous, and Autolive was bound by the underlying agreement; and (2) by cashing Autolive's check for $65,000, the petitioner and Autolive did not reach an accord and satisfaction under the facts of the case. View "Haynes v. DaimlerChrysler Corp." on Justia Law

Randy Mace, as personal representative of the estate of Kathy Mace, appealed from an order of the circuit court dismissing his wrongful death lawsuit on the basis of forum non conveniens. Applying the forum non conveniens statute, the circuit court concluded that North Carolina, the state in which the action accrued, was a more convenient forum for Mace's claims. Mace argued, however, that he was unable to try his claims in North Carolina because they were barred by that state's statute of limitations. Thus, he argued, the circuit court erred in dismissing the case because it misinterpreted the forum non conveniens statute as permitting dismissal despite the lack of an alternate forum in which the claims may be tried. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Finding the language of the statute ambiguous, the Court construed the statute in a manner consistent with the Court's prior case law and the federal common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Under this construction, the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the statute. View "Mace v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Appellants William and Denise Huggins filed a lawsuit against appellees sewer board, city, and mayor, alleging that a violation of the Workers' Compensation Act had occurred when Huggins' health insurance was terminated while he was off of work recovering from a compensable work-related injury, and, further, that he had been wrongfully terminated. The appellees filed a motion for summary judgment with the lower court, alleging that the plaintiffs had no basis in law for their complaint. The circuit court granted the motion, and the appellants appealed. At issue was whether Huggins was terminated while off work and receiving temporary total disability benefits due to his compensable injury, or, instead, whether Huggins resigned from employment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that appellees terminated Huggins in violation of the anti-discrimination policies set forth in the Act. However, the circuit court's determination that Huggins was not entitled to punitive damages against the mayor was affirmed. View "Huggins, et al. v. City of Westover Sanitary Sewer Board" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy Technology Board of Examiners appealed an order of the circuit court. In the order, the court reversed the Board's decision to suspend Appellee Kenneth Harrison's medical license. The Board issued a final administrative decision that found Dr. Harrison practiced outside the scope of his medical imaging and radiation therapy license when he administered intravenous allergy medicine to a patient without the treating physician's involvement. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision.

Appellants Farouk Abadir, Hosny Gabriel, Ricardo Ramos, Alfredo Rivas and Michael Vega sued their former attorney Mark Dellinger and his law firm Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP because Mr. Dellinger settled a case in which they were all defendants without their consent. The circuit court dismissed the case, concluding that the Supreme Court had already decided that Mr. Dellinger had the âapparentâ authority to settle. Furthermore, the court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded Appellants from challenging what Mr. Dellinger had done. In this latest appeal, Appellants alleged that the circuit court erred in granting Mr. Dellingerâs motion to dismiss because the court failed to distinguish between the âactualâ and âapparentâ authority an attorney had to settle a case. After a thorough review of the record, the Supreme Court agreed, and held that the circuit court erred in granting Mr. Dellingerâs motion to dismiss. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Petitioner The Lincoln Journal, Inc. sought a writ of prohibition against the Honorable Jane Hustead, to prevent an order to compel the revelation of alleged confidential and First Amendment privileged news sources and news gathering materials. Respondents Timothy Butcher and Bobby Adkins filed suit against the Journal alleging that eleven news articles that reported on the 2008 Lincoln County Primary Election were defamatory. These articles reported an ongoing investigation into alleged campaign law violations, including allegations that election laws were violated by individuals who funneled or received thousands of dollars in support of candidates backed by Dan Butcher. The circuit court ordered production of the Journalâs sources. Petitioner asserted that if forced to produce the privileged documents, the resulting breach of confidentiality and exposure of the news gathering materials would be severe and irreparable. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the case, and found that the circuit court erred by compelling the Journal to reveal its sources and news gathering materials. The Court granted the writ of prohibition, and remanded the case for further proceedings.