Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, The Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation (ACT), filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that a public highway construction contract awarded to Respondent, Nicewonder Contracting, Inc., by Respondent, West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways (DOH), violated state competitive bidding and prevailing wage laws. The circuit court dismissed ACT's action, finding it lacked standing to challenge the highway construction contract. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that ACT had representative standing to seek the declarations. On remand, the circuit court determined that the Court's opinion in ACT I did not completely decide the issue of ACT's standing and ordered that ACT join the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a defendant in the action. The Supreme Court subsequently granted ACT's requested writ of prohibition because the circuit court did not give effect to the mandate of the Court in ACT I, holding (1) ACT, as a matter of law, had standing to prosecute its lawsuit; and (2) FHWA was not an indispensable party to the lawsuit. View "State ex rel. Affiliated Constr. Trades v. Circuit Court (Stucky)" on Justia Law

John Epling was arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The DUI charge against Epling was subsequently dismissed. Following an administrative hearing, the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles ordered that Epling's privilege to drive a motor vehicle be revoked. The circuit court remanded the case for a new full evidentiary hearing, with directions to perform a proper analysis under Muscatell v. Cline and Choma v. W. Va. Division of Motor Vehicles. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and in so ruling, expressly overruled syllabus point three of Choma, holding (1) when a criminal action for driving while under the influence results in a dismissal or acquittal, such dismissal or acquittal has no preclusive effect on a subsequent proceeding to revoke the driver's license, and moreover, in the license revocation proceeding, evidence of the dismissal or acquittal is not admissible to establish the truth of any fact; (2) the circuit court did not err in remanding the matter for a proper Muscatell analysis; and (3) the circuit court erred in remanding the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings, as the Commissioner had jurisdiction to conduct the new evidentiary hearing. View "Miller v. Epling" on Justia Law

Infant was born with severe brain damage. Respondent, Infant's mother, on behalf of Infant, applied for and received Medicaid benefits from the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR). Respondent later filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of Infant. Subsequently, Respondent petitioned the circuit court for approval of the settlement, requesting that Medicaid not be reimbursed. DHHR intervened. The court granted the motion of Respondent for allocation of the $3,600,000 settlement, holding that, pursuant to Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, a proportional reduction of DHHR's recovery was required based on the ratio of the settlement to the "full value" of the case among the various damages categories. Using this allocation method, the court reduced DHHR's statutory reimbursement from the requested amount of $289,075 to $79,040 and directed that the net settlement proceeds be placed in a special needs trust for the benefit of Infant. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages was applicable in this case; and (2) under the formula applied in Ahlborn, the DHHR was entitled to approximately $98,080, less its pro rata share of attorney's fees and costs. Remanded. View "In re E.B." on Justia Law

As the primary beneficiary under an insurance policy issued by Appellee Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant Roger Goff brought a cause of action under the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act, asserting that Penn Mutual had violated the statutory duty of good faith and fair dealing. After deciding that Goff did not meet the accepted definition of either a first- or a third-party bad faith claimant, the trial court dismissed Goff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a primary life insurance beneficiary may assert a statutory bad faith action upon the death of the insured. Remanded. View "Goff v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner Brent McGilton was convicted by a jury of three counts of malicious assault against his wife, Angela McGilton. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court violated his double jeopardy protections by sentencing him for three counts of malicious assault for three wounds caused during the same course of conduct. Petitioner was sentenced to two to ten years on the first count of malicious assault, two to ten years on the second count of malicious assault, and four to ten years on the third count of malicious assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's double jeopardy rights were not violated for his three separate malicious assault convictions, as a defendant may be convicted of multiple offenses of malicious assault under W. Va. Code 61-2-9(a) against the same victim even when the offenses were a part of the same course of conduct as long as the facts demonstrate separate and distinct violations of the statute. View "State v. McGilton" on Justia Law

These two consolidated appeals, brought by the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, challenged two separate orders of the circuit court holding that the nolo contendere pleas of Respondents did not constitute convictions, thus entitling Respondents to an administrative hearing prior to having their drivers' licenses revoked. The Commissioner argued that the circuit courts erred in granting extraordinary relief to Respondents and in prohibiting the Commission from automatically revoking Repondents' drivers licenses because the nolo contendere pleas constituted convictions under the applicable law. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, holding (1) under the applicable law, a plea of no contest does not constitute a conviction, and thus Respondents were not convicted of the charge of DUI; (2) thus, the Commissioner lacked the authority to revoke Respondents' drivers' licenses without affording them the opportunity to be heard at an administrative hearing; and (3) therefore, the circuit courts correctly ordered that the Commissioner afford Respondents a hearing on the merits of their revocations. Remanded. View "Miller v. Wood" on Justia Law

Petitioner was employed by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History (Division) as an at will employee. Petitioner was later terminated from his employment. Petitioner filed a grievance with the Public Employees Grievance Board. An ALJ denied the Division's motion to dismiss and authorized the filing of an amended grievance. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended grievance, which a succeeding ALJ dismissed. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner's grievance for failure to state a ground upon which relief may be granted, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by affirming the decision of the Board without a hearing before an ALJ; and (2) the second ALJ had authority to enter a dismissal order after the previous ALJ denied the Division's motion to dismiss. View "Armstrong v. Div. of Culture & History" on Justia Law

This appeal was brought by Appellant following two separate orders of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Allied Warehousing Services, Inc., the Appellee, dismissing Appellant's workers' compensation fraud and common law fraud claims and granting summary judgment to Appellee, finding it to be a special employer of Appellant for the purpose of workers' compensation immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on Appellant's workers' compensation and common law fraud claims because there was no basis to conclude that the alleged fraudulent conduct had any prejudicial effect on the decision of the ALJ regarding the suspension of Appellant's temporary total disability benefits; and (2) the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to Appellee on Appellant's negligence claim on the basis that Appellee was Appellant's special employer, thus entitling Appellee to workers' compensation immunity from such a negligence claim. View "Bowens v. Allied Warehousing Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant Lola Watkins appealed a final order entered in the circuit court, which affirmed a decision by the ALJ of the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board denying Appellant's grievance of her termination from employment as a teacher. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ's denial of Appellant's grievance was not clearly wrong, as (1) the ALJ properly concluded that the Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence the basis for Appellant's termination; (2) Appellant was afforded adequate notice that the Board intended to present matters relating to her employment history at the grievance hearing; and (3) Appellant failed to make a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. View "Watkins v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced to a term of twelve months in jail and was required to register as a sex offender. When Defendant entered his guilty plea, the Sex Offender Registration Act provided that anyone who was required to register as a sex offender must do so for a period of ten years. Following the completion of Defendant's sentence but during his ten-year registration period, the Legislature amended the Act, requiring a registration period for certain sex offenders increased from ten years to life. The statutory changes applied to Defendant. After Defendant was indicted for offenses relating to the amended Act, Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. The Supreme Court accepted certified questions from the circuit court and answered that constitutional separation of powers provisions were not violated by the Act's authorization of the state police to impose an increase in the registration period for convicted sex offenders. View "State v. Bostic" on Justia Law