Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In these consolidated petitions in which Petitioners - Defendants in Opioid Litigation, which included more than eighty lawsuits pending before the Mass Litigation Panel - sought extraordinary relief prohibiting enforcement of two of the Panel's recent rulings, the Supreme Court granted in part one petition and denied the other, holding that Petitioners demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted to preserve their right to try Respondents' legal claims to a jury.The Opioid Litigation began in 2017 when various cities, counties, hospitals, and the State sued manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioid pain medication and other defendants. In these consolidated petitions, Petitioners sought to prohibit enforcement of the Panel's recent rulings that Petitioners did not have a right to a jury trial of Respondents' public nuisance claims and that those same public nuisance claims were not subject to the 2015 amendments to West Virginia's comparative fault statute. The Supreme Court held (1) the Panel did not clearly err when it found that the 2015 amendments did not apply to the public nuisance claims; but (2) the Panel clearly erred by not safeguarding Defendants' right to try issues common to Plaintiffs' public nuisance claims and their legal claims to a jury. View "State ex rel. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.v. Honorable Moats" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the circuit court in these consolidated cases, holding that the West Virginia Health Care Authority's interpretation of the State Health Plan Home Health Services Standards was not arbitrary or capricious and was entitled to judicial deference pursuant to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984).The Standards governed the Authority's consideration of applications from entities and individuals seeking to provide home health care services in a particular county. The Standards included a methodology for determining whether there was an unmet need for such services in the county. Petitioners argued that unmet need could not be established unless the evidence showed that at least 229 individuals in the subject county were in need of home health care services. Respondents countered that the Standards required the new applicant to demonstrate a need at or beyond the 229 average usage figure. The circuit court concluded that the Authority did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Authority did not exceed its constitutional or statutory authority and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. View "Amedisys West Virginia, LLC v. Personal Touch Home Care of W. Va., Inc." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals arising from breach of contract litigation between Thomas and Jamie Miller and WesBanco Bank, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of prejudgment interest to the Millers and reversed the jury's damages award, holding that the Millers' evidence failed to support this verdict.On appeal, the Millers, who prevailed below, challenged the denial of their request for prejudgment interest, which was based upon their failure to request prejudgment interest from the jury. In its separate appeal, WesBanco raised four assignments of error. The Supreme Court remanded in part for further proceedings, holding (1) there was no error in the circuit court's denial of prejudgment interest; (2) there was no error in the admission of parol evidence; (3) the duty of good faith and fair dealing was properly applied to modify WesBanco's contractual obligations; (4) the circuit court did not err in denying judgment as a matter of law to WesBanco; and (5) the jury's damages award of $404,500 was against the clear weight of the evidence. View "Miller v. Wesbanco Bank, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Morgantown Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home, holding that the circuit court erred in applying the statute of limitations contained in the Wrongful Death Act, W. Va. Code 55-7-6, instead of that contained in the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), W. Va. Code 55-7B-4(b).More than one year after Jacqulin Cowell, a resident of Morgantown Health, died, her daughter and administratrix of her estate sued Morgantown Health, alleging that poor care, neglect, and abuse resulted in Cowell's death. Morgantown Health filed a motion, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations in section 55-7B-4(b) had lapsed and, therefore, the complaint was untimely. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the statute of limitations in the Wrongful Death Act, rather than that contained in the MPLA, applied. Morgantown Health requested a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in applying the Wrongful Death Act's statute of limitations to Plaintiff's wrongful death claim. View "State ex rel. Morgantown Operating Co. LLC v. Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Activate Healthcare, LLC under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Plaintiff's factual allegations against Activate were insufficient to establish a claim of aiding and abetting under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.Plaintiff was working at Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC when she requested a change in her duties to accommodate her medical condition. Plaintiff was directed to Activate, Constellium's on-site medical provider, for a physical activity report, but Activate issued more than one report. Constellium terminated Plaintiff based on one of the reports and later returned to work. After Plaintiff unsuccessfully filed a grievance seeking lost wages during her break in employment she sued Constellium, Activate, and other defendants, alleging retaliation and discrimination. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff's aiding and abetting claim against Activate for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that nothing in the complaint could be construed to establish the elements of an aiding and abetting claim. View "Boone vs. Activate Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the final order of the circuit court terminating Mother's rights to her infant son in an abuse and neglect proceeding, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that the child was abused and/or neglected. The petition stated that Mother and the child were residents of Tazewell County, Virginia but that the circuit court had jurisdiction because West Virginia was the home state of the child at the commencement of this proceeding. When DHHR was granted emergency legal custody of the child, Mother returned home to Virginia. The circuit court adjudicated Mother as an abusing parent and subsequently terminated her rights. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding. View "In re Z.H." on Justia Law

In this petition challenging two circuit court rulings the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling dismissing Petitioner's writ of prohibition and reversed the monetary sanction the circuit court imposed on Petitioner's attorney, Gregory Schillace, holding that Schillace was entitled to a jury trial on this sanction.Petitioner filed a complaint for declaratory relief, writ of prohibition and other relief seeking to enforce the terms of a divorce settlement entered into by Petitioner and his former wife and seeking to prevent the family court from proceeding with a contempt hearing against Petitioner and Schillace. At issue was a monetary sanction the circuit court imposed on Schillace and the circuit court's ruling dismissing Petitioner's writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly dismissed Petitioner's writ of prohibition; and (2) Schillace was entitled to a jury trial on the monetary sanction. View "Rector v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the order of the family court, which crafted a reunification plan with the goal of allowing grandparent of visitation to Respondents, the paternal grandparents of the six children in this case, holding that Petitioner did not meet her burden to demonstrate error.Upon her divorce from the children's father, Petitioner was granted full custody of the children. In the presence of all the children, the maternal grandfather shot and killed the father and then shot and killed himself. Respondents subsequently filed a petition for grandparent visitation. After a hearing, the family court ordered grandparent visitation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of showing that the judgment below was erroneous. View "In re Grandparent Visitation of L.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court concluding that the right of first refusal in a deed conveying land from the grantor to the grantee but containing a clause granting the grantee to give a "stranger" the right of first refusal to any future conveyance of the land was not void under the "stranger to the deed" rule.The "stranger to the deed" rule identifies someone who is neither a grantor nor a grantee to a conveyance as a "stranger" and posits that any property interest in favor of that stranger, and which is contained in a reservation or an exception, is void. The circuit court applied the "stranger to the deed" rule and ruled that the right of first refusal clause in the deed was void and unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a right of first refusal clause in a deed is neither an exception nor a reservation; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred when it applied the "stranger to the deed" rule and dismissed the complaint. View "Klein v. McCullough" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner requesting the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the Honorable Paul Farrell, Judge of the Circuit Court of Cabell County, from enforcing the court's order in which the circuit court denied Petitioner's motion to dismiss, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner was indicted on three felony offenses in the Circuit Court of Cabell County. In his request for prohibitory relief from the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that the State violated his speedy trial right by not trying him within three regular terms of court after the return of his indictment, as required by W. Va. Code 62-3-21. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ of prohibition, holding that there was no violation of the three-term rule in this case because, as of the date of Petitioner's motion to dismiss and the circuit court's ruling on the motion, three regular terms of court had not yet passed since Petitioner had been indicted. View "State ex rel. Porter v. Honorable Paul Farrell" on Justia Law