Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The petitioners, current and retired Natural Resources Police Officers employed by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR), have been receiving a statutory "subsistence allowance" since 1996. This allowance was included in their reported "compensation" to the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (the Board) for calculating retirement annuities under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). In 2014, the Board discovered this inclusion was erroneous and decided to correct it by refunding overpaid contributions to active and inactive officers and adjusting retirement annuities for retired officers.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reversed the Board's decision, finding the subsistence allowance was pensionable compensation. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court held in West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Clark (Clark I) that the subsistence allowance was not "compensation" for PERS purposes and that the Board failed to correct the error in a timely manner for retired officers. The case was remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed two certified questions from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The first question asked if the holding in Clark I required the subsistence pay received by all retired and active DNR officers to be included in calculating their pensionable income. The court answered "no," clarifying that Clark I's holding was limited to retired officers and did not apply to active and inactive officers. The second question asked if the petitioners were entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the Board. The court declined to answer, stating that it did not present an issue of law but rather a question of fact. View "Clark v. West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board" on Justia Law

James Cooper was injured in a car accident while riding as a passenger in a car owned by Rick Huffman. Both Cooper and Huffman were employees of Pison Management, LLC, and were driving to a jobsite during their employment. Cooper's injuries exceeded the at-fault driver's insurance limits, so he sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under Pison’s commercial automobile policy issued by Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company. The policy provided liability coverage for two vehicles owned by Pison and a class of non-owned vehicles, but UIM coverage was only provided for the owned vehicles. Erie denied Cooper’s claim for UIM coverage.Erie filed a suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the policy did not provide the UIM coverage Cooper sought. Cooper counterclaimed, arguing that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 required Erie to offer UIM coverage for the class of non-owned vehicles. The district court ruled in favor of Cooper, holding that the statute required Erie to make a commercially reasonable offer of UIM coverage for all vehicles covered by the liability policy, including non-owned vehicles. Erie appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court held that West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 does not require an insurer to offer UIM coverage for a class of non-owned vehicles when a commercial automobile insurance policy insures certain owned vehicles and a class of non-owned vehicles for liability protection. The court reasoned that UIM coverage is intended to protect the named insured and permissive users of the named insured’s vehicle, not to extend to non-owned vehicles. Therefore, the court answered the certified question in the negative and dismissed the case from its docket, returning the matter to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Jay Folse, purchased real property tax liens on two properties in Cabell County, West Virginia, in September 2021. He provided the necessary information to the respondents, G. Russell Rollyson, Jr., and Mark A. Hunt, to issue notices to redeem to the previous owners. However, some notices were returned as undeliverable. The respondents requested additional addresses and funds for personal service, which the petitioner did not provide. Instead, he filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cabell County to compel the issuance of tax deeds.The circuit court dismissed the petition, stating that a writ of mandamus was required to compel the issuance of the tax deeds. The petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the circuit court's decision, relying on the precedent set in Lemley v. Phillips, which required a writ of mandamus for such relief.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the ICA erred in its reliance on Lemley. The court noted that significant statutory changes had occurred since Lemley, providing a statutory remedy for compelling the issuance of notices to redeem and tax deeds. The court held that a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the deputy commissioner to execute a deed for land purchased at a delinquent tax sale, as the remedy provided by West Virginia Code § 11A-3-60 is exclusive.The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the ICA's decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings to determine whether the petitioner satisfied all necessary requirements for the issuance of the tax deeds. The court emphasized the need for factual and legal determinations to be made by the circuit court in the first instance. View "Folse v. Rollyson" on Justia Law

Jobie Howard, an electrician for Arch Coal, Inc., suffered severe injuries from an electrical explosion in May 2010, resulting in multiple burns, visual impairment, and other physical issues. He received a total of 57% in permanent partial disability (PPD) awards and applied for a permanent total disability (PTD) award in 2015. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review determined in November 2022 that Howard met the 50% whole person impairment (WPI) threshold required for a PTD award, combining impairment ratings from two physicians using the Combined Values Chart from the AMA Guides.The claim administrator initially denied Howard’s PTD application in October 2020, but Howard protested, leading to a review by the Board of Review. The Board found the reports of Dr. Michael A. Krasnow and Dr. Jitander S. Dudee reliable for visual impairment and Dr. David L. Soulsby reliable for orthopedic and dermatological impairment. The Board combined Dr. Dudee’s 27% WPI rating for the eye and Dr. Soulsby’s 39% WPI rating for other injuries, resulting in a total WPI of 55%.Arch Coal appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that the Board improperly combined impairment ratings from different physicians. The ICA affirmed the Board’s decision, reasoning that it was reasonable to combine the ratings since no single physician could rate all of Howard’s impairments.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the ICA’s decision. The court held that the Board acted within its discretion by combining valid impairment ratings from different physicians and using the Combined Values Chart to determine Howard’s total WPI. The court found no error in the Board’s decision to grant Howard a PTD award based on a combined WPI of 55%. View "Arch Coal, Inc., v. Howard" on Justia Law

Petitioner mother C.V. appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the reasons for termination were instances of noncompliance known to the Department of Human Services (DHS) throughout the proceedings but not raised until disposition. Specifically, Petitioner was directed to participate in mental health counseling but refused, and there were two isolated incidents of improper contact with the child. Despite these issues, DHS advised the court at various hearings that Petitioner was compliant and doing well with her improvement period. Petitioner underwent a psychological evaluation, which recommended intensive psychotherapy and medication management. Following this report, DHS sought termination of her parental rights.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County initially granted Petitioner an improvement period, during which she was reported to be compliant with services. However, after the psychological evaluation, DHS changed its position and sought termination based on her failure to seek mental health treatment and visitation violations. The circuit court terminated Petitioner’s parental rights, finding that she had not met her burden of proof and had not addressed her mental health issues.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court had impermissibly shifted the burden of proof onto Petitioner. The court emphasized that DHS always has the burden of proof in abuse and neglect cases and must provide clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parental rights. The court vacated the dispositional order and remanded the case for a new dispositional hearing, allowing for further exploration of Petitioner’s mental health treatment and current status. View "In re K.V." on Justia Law

Lateef Jabrall McGann was convicted by a jury for the felony offense of fleeing from a law enforcement officer with reckless indifference. The State of West Virginia then filed a recidivist information, asserting that McGann should be sentenced to life with mercy under West Virginia Code § 61-11-18(d). The recidivist jury found McGann had prior felony convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and wanton endangerment. The Circuit Court of Berkeley County, however, concluded that imposing a recidivist life sentence would violate the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution and was arbitrary and capricious.The State sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to prevent the circuit court from imposing any sentence other than a recidivist life sentence. The State argued that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers by not imposing the mandatory life sentence as required by the recidivist statute.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the circuit court erred in its decision. The court held that the recidivist life sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate, as the crime of fleeing with reckless indifference is considered a violent felony. The court also found no evidence of selective prosecution or violation of equal protection rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition, directing the circuit court to impose the recidivist life sentence on McGann. View "State ex rel. State v. Cohee" on Justia Law

The case involves a child, C.E.-1, who was found in a dangerous situation due to his parents' substance abuse. The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition against the parents, L.F. and C.E.-2, after L.F. was found unconscious with heroin nearby, and C.E.-1 was left in her care. Both parents admitted to drug use and were granted improvement periods to address their issues. However, they failed to comply with the terms, leading the guardian ad litem to move for termination of the improvement periods.The Circuit Court of Hancock County extended the improvement periods despite the parents' noncompliance, effectively prolonging the case. The guardian ad litem objected, but the court continued the improvement periods until July 2023. The court then scheduled a dispositional hearing but instead held an ex parte meeting with all parties except the guardian ad litem. Following this meeting, the court approved a Disposition Five agreement, placing C.E.-1 in the custody of the DHS and planning for a legal guardianship with the maternal grandmother.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred by not conducting a proper dispositional hearing and by excluding the guardian ad litem from the ex parte meeting. The court also noted that the dispositional order lacked necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's dispositional order and remanded the case for a proper dispositional hearing and entry of a new order consistent with its opinion. View "In re C.E.-1" on Justia Law

The case involves Corbett Maurice Carter, who was placed on home incarceration with electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial bond after being charged with first-degree robbery. Carter left his home, cut his electronic monitoring bracelet, and disposed of it in a dumpster. He was later apprehended and charged with felony escape. At trial, the State presented evidence including the bond order and testimony from Corporal Patrick Vance, who supervised Carter's home incarceration. The jury found Carter guilty of felony escape.The Circuit Court of Raleigh County sentenced Carter to a three-year determinate sentence. Carter appealed, arguing that home incarceration as a condition of pretrial bond does not constitute "custody" under the escape statute, West Virginia Code § 61-5-10 (2000). He contended that the statute's language and legislative intent did not encompass pretrial home incarceration and that previous court decisions differentiated between pretrial and postconviction home incarceration.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Carter was in "custody" for purposes of the escape statute, as the Raleigh County Sheriff exercised significant control over his movements and daily life. The court found no legislative intent to exclude pretrial home incarceration from the statute's reach and emphasized that the statute aims to deter escape from lawful custody, whether pretrial or postconviction. The court affirmed Carter's conviction for felony escape, concluding that he breached the confinement imposed as a condition of his bond. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

In this case, Anthony M. was convicted of wanton endangerment, malicious assault, and other charges related to a 2021 shooting involving Brittany S., the mother of his children. Brittany S. testified that Anthony M. shot her while their infant child, K.M., was nearby. The State presented evidence including text messages, cell phone location data, and a firearm linked to the shooting found in Anthony M.'s residence. Anthony M. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, and argued that his convictions for both wanton endangerment and malicious assault violated double jeopardy protections.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County had previously denied Anthony M.'s post-trial motions, including a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial. The jury had acquitted him of charges related to a 2020 shooting but found him guilty of all charges related to the 2021 incident. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for each conviction.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the conviction and sentence for both wanton endangerment and malicious assault violated double jeopardy protections because both charges stemmed from a single act involving one gunshot at Brittany S. The court affirmed the convictions on all other charges but vacated the conviction for wanton endangerment (Count Eleven) and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion.The court also addressed Anthony M.'s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his convictions. Additionally, the court found that the improper admission of lay opinion testimony by Brittany S.'s mother was harmless error and did not warrant a new trial. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anthony M.'s motion for a mistrial based on the State's improper comment on his right to remain silent. View "State v. Anthony M." on Justia Law

Petitioner C.S. and Respondent A.F.-1 are the non-offending parents of D.S., a child involved in an abuse and neglect proceeding. The Circuit Court of Grant County held several evidentiary hearings to determine custody of D.S. and awarded equal custodial responsibility to both parents. The father argued that he was the primary caregiver and that the mother had serious mental health issues affecting her ability to parent. The mother, the child’s guardian ad litem, and the Department of Human Services contended that the mother was receiving proper treatment and could share caretaking responsibilities.The Circuit Court of Grant County found that both parents had stable employment and homes, and although the mother had mental health issues, she was seeking proper treatment and could safely parent. The court noted that the mother had expansive visitation with D.S., which was appropriate and beneficial for the child. The court also emphasized the importance of D.S. maintaining contact with his half-sibling, A.F.-2. Despite concerns about the parents' strained relationship, the court concluded that both parents had the child’s best interests at heart and ordered a transition plan for equal custody.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and applied a two-prong deferential standard of review. The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding equal custodial allocation. The court noted that the circuit court had considered all relevant factors, including the mother’s mental health treatment and the father’s allegations. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of meaningful contact between the child and both parents, as well as the child’s half-sibling. View "In re D.S." on Justia Law