Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A mother failed to obtain necessary follow-up medical care for her child, P.S., after ear surgery, resulting in the child’s hearing loss. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition alleging medical neglect of P.S. and broader neglect of all children in the home, including H.B., R.B., B.S., O.S., and I.S. The mother stipulated only to medical neglect of P.S. During the proceedings, she was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period and initially made progress, but later tested positive for drugs, stopped participating in services, and ceased communication with DHS.The Circuit Court of Boone County adjudicated all the children as abused and neglected and terminated the mother’s parental rights to R.B., B.S., O.S., P.S., and I.S., and her custodial rights to H.B. The court found that the mother’s disengagement and substance abuse demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the improvement plan, and that DHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The court did not terminate the mother’s parental rights to H.B. due to his age and wishes.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the circuit court erred in adjudicating and terminating the mother’s rights as to H.B., R.B., B.S., O.S., and I.S. based solely on her stipulation to medical neglect of P.S., as neglect of one child cannot be automatically imputed to others under the statutory definitions. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights to P.S., finding no error in the adjudication or disposition as to her. The orders were vacated as to the other children and remanded for further proceedings, including reopening adjudication for those children. View "In re H.B., R.B., B.S., P.S., O.S., and I.S." on Justia Law

On June 4, 2022, a Parkersburg police officer arrested Michael Keith Allman pursuant to an outstanding warrant. At the time of arrest, Mr. Allman was carrying a backpack, which he set down before being handcuffed. After backup officers arrived and secured the scene, police searched the backpack and discovered drugs, digital scales, and ammunition. These items formed the basis for multiple charges against Mr. Allman, including felony possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and related offenses.Following indictment by a Wood County Grand Jury, Mr. Allman moved to suppress the evidence found in the backpack, arguing that the warrantless search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the West Virginia Constitution. The Circuit Court of Wood County held a suppression hearing, where the arresting officer testified about the circumstances of the arrest and search. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the search was lawful as incident to arrest and justified by concerns for officer safety and preservation of evidence. Mr. Allman was subsequently convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The high court held that, although the seizure of the backpack was lawful, the warrantless search was not justified as a search incident to arrest because Mr. Allman was handcuffed and the backpack was not within his immediate control at the time of the search. The court found no applicable exception to the warrant requirement and concluded that the search violated Mr. Allman’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The court vacated Mr. Allman’s drug-related convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of West Virginia v. Allman" on Justia Law

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