Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A violent home invasion occurred in Huntington, Cabell County, West Virginia, on November 22, 2020, when Nathan Dolen attacked Ronald and Orlinda Adkins, robbing them, inflicting serious injuries, and restraining them with handcuffs. Dolen stole firearms and other property, including a truck that he later burned. Both victims required hospitalization and rehabilitation. Dolen was indicted on thirteen felony counts, including kidnapping, robbery, assault, and arson. At trial, the State introduced cell site data and a PowerPoint mapping the locations of a phone associated with Dolen, which became a focus of the appeal. The jury convicted Dolen on all counts except one malicious assault charge.The Circuit Court of Cabell County presided over the trial. During trial, Dolen’s counsel objected to the admission of the PowerPoint, arguing it was not disclosed in discovery and that expert testimony about it violated Dolen’s confrontation rights because the testifying expert did not create the presentation. The court found that Dolen had received the underlying AT&T data and had time to review the PowerPoint before its admission, and allowed the expert to testify, finding no prejudice. Dolen also moved for acquittal on the kidnapping charges, arguing insufficient evidence and lack of intent for ransom, reward, or concession, but the court denied the motion. Dolen did not argue that the kidnapping was incidental to the robbery until appeal.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the PowerPoint and expert testimony, finding no discovery violation or Confrontation Clause breach, as the expert independently verified the data. The court also found sufficient evidence for the kidnapping convictions and declined to review the “incidental to robbery” argument, as it was not preserved below. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "State of West Virginia v. Dolen" on Justia Law

A group of former coal miners brought products liability lawsuits against several manufacturers and distributors of respirators, alleging that the devices failed to protect them from dust exposure and caused them to develop occupational lung diseases. Each plaintiff had used specific respirators during their mining careers and claimed that the products were defective. The cases were consolidated for discovery due to common factual and legal issues. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by West Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.The Circuit Court of McDowell County granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that each plaintiff knew or should have known of their injury and its possible connection to the respirators more than two years before filing suit. The court used certain “triggering” dates—such as the date of medical diagnosis, receipt of disability benefits, or application for federal black lung benefits—to determine when the statute of limitations began to run. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the circuit court improperly resolved factual disputes and applied an incorrect standard for latent disease cases. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the timeliness of the claims.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court held that, under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations in products liability cases begins when a plaintiff knows or should know of their injury, the identity of the product’s maker, and the product’s causal relation to the injury. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact as to when each plaintiff was on notice of their injury and its possible cause, and rejected arguments for tolling based on fraudulent concealment. The summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Hardy v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

A petition alleging abuse and neglect was filed regarding a child, P.K., who was living with her paternal grandmother (the petitioner) in Lincoln County, West Virginia. The initial allegations against the petitioner concerned unsafe and unsanitary living conditions, including lack of running water, inadequate food, and exposure to hazards. P.K. was removed from the petitioner’s home and placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS). The petitioner admitted to the allegations and was adjudicated as having abused and/or neglected P.K. After a period of improvement and compliance with a family case plan, P.K. was returned to the petitioner’s care, and both were dismissed from the proceedings.After reunification, DHS filed a motion to modify the prior order, alleging new instances of abuse and neglect, such as medical neglect, exposure to registered sex offenders, and educational neglect. DHS subsequently filed a third amended petition with additional allegations. The Circuit Court of Lincoln County held a dispositional hearing, found the petitioner to be an abusive and neglectful custodian based on the new allegations, and terminated her custodial rights without first conducting a separate adjudicatory hearing on those new allegations. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, arguing that she was entitled to an adjudicatory hearing on the new allegations, was denied.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and held that termination of custodial rights requires a prerequisite adjudication of abuse or neglect on the specific allegations at issue. The court found that the petitioner was not afforded an adjudicatory hearing on the new allegations in the third amended petition, and that such allegations do not constitute a material change of circumstances for modification under Rule 46 or West Virginia Code § 49-4-606(a). The court vacated the circuit court’s order terminating custodial rights and remanded for further proceedings consistent with proper abuse and neglect procedures. View "In re P.K." on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to two counts of third-degree sexual assault involving young children, with the offenses occurring in 2012. As part of a plea agreement, he was sentenced to two consecutive one-to-five-year prison terms, which were suspended in favor of placement at a correctional center and completion of a sex offender program. He was also ordered to serve a twenty-five-year term of supervised release. After being removed from the correctional center for behavioral issues, he served his prison sentence and began supervised release in 2017. Over the following years, his supervised release was revoked four times due to repeated violations, including unauthorized contact with minors, failure to report relationships, drug use, and dishonesty with probation officers. Each revocation resulted in increasing terms of imprisonment.The Circuit Court of Ohio County presided over each revocation. On the fourth revocation, the court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years’ imprisonment and imposed an additional twenty-five-year term of supervised release to begin after his release from prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence was constitutionally disproportionate and that the additional supervised release term exceeded the statutory maximum under West Virginia Code § 62-12-26(j).The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the twenty-five-year imprisonment sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate, given the seriousness of the underlying offenses and the defendant’s repeated breaches of trust while on supervised release. However, the court found that the circuit court erred in calculating the additional term of supervised release. The statute requires subtracting all prior revocation imprisonment terms from the maximum authorized supervised release period. The court affirmed the imprisonment sentence, vacated the supervised release term, and remanded for resentencing on that issue. View "State of West Virginia v. Brautigam" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted for failing to provide notice of sex offender registration changes, which was his third or subsequent offense. After a jury convicted him of the substantive charge, he admitted to having at least two prior convictions for similar offenses. The circuit court continued his bond with the condition of home incarceration and referred the case for a presentence investigation and report. However, the defendant absconded by removing his ankle monitor and failed to appear for both his presentence interview and the initial sentencing hearing. He was later apprehended and brought before the court for sentencing.The Circuit Court of Summers County held a sentencing hearing after the defendant’s apprehension. At this hearing, defense counsel requested a continuance because no presentence investigation or report had been completed, and objected to sentencing without it, especially since the defendant was seeking probation. The circuit court found that the defendant’s escape constituted a waiver of his right to a presentence investigation and report, denied probation, and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of ten to twenty-five years’ incarceration. The defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by sentencing him without a presentence investigation and report.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that while there is no constitutional right to a presentence investigation and report, West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(b)(1) requires a presentence report unless specific conditions are met. The court found that the defendant’s escape only waived his right to participate in the investigation, not his right to have a report prepared. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the case, directing the circuit court to order a presentence investigation and report and to conduct a new sentencing hearing in accordance with Rule 32. View "State of West Virginia v. DePriest" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit brought by Jacklin Romeo, Susan S. Rine, and Debra Snyder Miller against Antero Resources Corporation. The plaintiffs, who own oil and gas interests in Harrison County, West Virginia, allege that Antero breached the terms of their leases by failing to pay the full one-eighth royalty specified in the leases. They argue that Antero improperly deducted postproduction costs from the gross sale proceeds of the gas, contrary to West Virginia Supreme Court precedents in Wellman v. Energy Resources, Inc. and Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, L.L.C.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, presided over by Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh, certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The first question asked whether the requirements of Wellman and Estate of Tawney extend only to the "first available market" as opposed to the "point of sale" when the duty to market is implicated. The second question asked whether the marketable product rule extends beyond gas to require a lessee to pay royalties on natural gas liquids (NGLs) and, if so, whether lessors share in the cost of processing, manufacturing, and transporting the NGLs to sale.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reaffirmed its previous rulings in Wellman and Estate of Tawney, holding that the requirements extend to the point of sale, not just to the first available market. The court also held that royalties are payable on NGLs, but absent express language in the lease, lessors do not share in the costs of processing, manufacturing, and transporting residue gas and NGLs to the point of sale. The court emphasized that any deductions for postproduction costs must be clearly and unambiguously stated in the lease agreements. View "Romeo v. Antero Resources Corporation" on Justia Law

The case involves Elaine Neidig, who had three mammograms at Valley Health System's Winchester Medical Center between 2016 and 2019. In 2019, the FDA found that some mammograms performed at the facility had serious image quality deficiencies. Neidig received a notification from Valley Health about these issues and subsequently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Valley Health misrepresented the quality of its mammography services. She claimed that the mammograms were worthless and sought economic damages, including statutory damages for consumer protection violations, compensatory damages, and contract damages. Neidig did not claim any physical or emotional injury.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia dismissed Neidig's complaint, ruling that her claims fell under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) and were barred by the MPLA’s statute of limitations. The court found that the MPLA applied because the claims were related to health care services, despite Neidig's argument that her claims were purely economic and not based on physical or emotional injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, asking whether the MPLA applies to claims where the plaintiff disclaims any form of physical or emotional injury. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reformulated the question to ask whether the MPLA applies when the plaintiff claims only economic damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the MPLA does not apply to a suit against a health care provider or health care facility when the plaintiff claims only economic damages and disclaims all liability based on physical injury, emotional injury, or death. The court emphasized that the MPLA requires a predicate claim arising from the death or injury of a person, and since Neidig's claims were solely for economic damages, the MPLA did not apply. View "Neidig v. Valley Health System" on Justia Law

In December 2020, Gavin Smith's grandfather discovered Smith's mother, stepfather, and two younger brothers shot to death in their home. Smith, who was sixteen at the time, was later found at his girlfriend's grandmother's house and arrested. Smith's girlfriend, Rebecca Walker, was also charged but entered a plea agreement to testify against Smith in exchange for a reduced sentence.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County transferred Smith from juvenile to adult criminal jurisdiction. A grand jury indicted him on four counts of first-degree murder and four counts of using a firearm during a felony. During the trial, Walker testified about her plea deal and the events of the murders. Smith's counsel cross-examined her about the life sentence she avoided, leading to a court instruction clarifying that Smith would be eligible for parole after fifteen years due to his age at the time of the crime.The jury convicted Smith of three counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, and one count of using a firearm during a felony. The court sentenced him to three life terms with mercy plus fifty years, all to run consecutively.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. Smith argued that the circuit court erred by informing the jury about his parole eligibility, which prejudiced the jury. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the circuit court's instruction on parole eligibility was improper and prejudicial. The court held that outside the context of cases involving a recommendation of mercy, it is improper to inform the jury about sentencing possibilities. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated Smith's convictions and the circuit court's sentencing order, remanding the case for a new trial. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves petitioners P.F. and R.F., who sought custody and visitation rights for their grandchild, A.F., following the termination of A.F.'s mother's parental rights due to abuse and neglect. The Department of Human Services (DHS) had previously removed A.F. from her mother's custody in 2017 due to deplorable living conditions in the home shared with the petitioners. In 2021, A.F. was again removed from her mother's custody and placed with foster parents, K.B. and M.B., who had previously cared for her. Petitioners moved to intervene and obtain custody and visitation in 2022, but the DHS opposed their motion, citing past maltreatment substantiations against petitioner R.F.The Circuit Court of Wood County initially denied petitioners' motion for visitation and directed the DHS to conduct a home study. Although the DHS initially denied the home study based on past substantiations, the DHS's Board of Review later reversed these substantiations and ordered a new home study, which was ultimately approved. Despite this, the DHS, guardian ad litem, and foster parents opposed placement with the petitioners, arguing that A.F. was thriving with the foster parents and had no bond with the petitioners.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court's order denying petitioners' motions for custody and visitation lacked sufficient findings to demonstrate that it properly considered the grandparent preference statute, West Virginia Code § 49-4-114(a)(3). The court emphasized that the statute presumes placement with grandparents is in the best interests of the child unless the record shows otherwise. The court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing and make detailed findings regarding the grandparent preference and the best interests of A.F. View "In re A.F." on Justia Law

Caitlin Workman, a maintenance trainee at a coal mine, was injured on November 8, 2021, when a chain under tension snapped and struck her right upper extremity. She was diagnosed with a right shoulder contusion and back laceration. Following the injury, she experienced increased pain, weakness in her right arm, grip strength deficit, and a noticeable tremor. Despite conflicting medical evidence, the claim administrator determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and suspended her temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review affirmed this decision.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) also affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that Ms. Workman had reached MMI and that her continuing symptoms were unrelated to the compensable injury. The ICA relied on the opinion of Dr. Mukkamala, who conducted an independent medical evaluation and found no need for further diagnostic studies or treatment.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the Board failed to properly weigh the medical evidence as required by West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g(a). The Court noted that the Board did not adequately explain why it favored Dr. Mukkamala’s opinion over the medical evidence provided by Ms. Workman’s treating physicians, who indicated that her symptoms were related to the compensable injury and that she had not reached MMI. The Court also found that the Board’s conclusion that Ms. Workman’s symptoms were unrelated to the compensable injury was clearly wrong.The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the ICA’s decision and remanded the case to the Board of Review with directions to award Ms. Workman TTD benefits from November 9, 2021, through April 9, 2022, and to authorize additional testing and treatment as supported by proper medical evidence. View "Workman v. ACNR Resources, Inc." on Justia Law