Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This action arose from medical treatment received by decedent Gary Rakes at the Bluefield Regional Medical Center between September 3, 2010 and September 5, 2010. The decedent died on September 5, 2010. Respondent, as personal representative of the estate of Gary Rakes, filed this medical malpractice action alleging that Defendants, including Dr. Delilah Stephens, deviated from the standard of care by prescribing and administering excessive doses of Haldol and Seroquel to the decedent. After a jury trial, the jury awarded Respondent $500,000 in non-economic damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. A judgment order in the amount of $810,000 was entered. Dr. Stephens appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Dr. Stephens’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for a new trial; (2) did not err in denying Dr. Stephens’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of proximate causation; and (3) did not err in denying Dr. Stephens’s motion for summary judgment regarding Respondent’s claim for punitive damages. View "Stephens v. Rakes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with Jerry Morrison for the construction of a log home on her property. Plaintiff entered into a second verbal contract with James Phillips to build the basement walls and a chimney with two fireplaces. Concerned about the number of apparent defects in the construction and excessive costs of the labor and materials, Plaintiff fired Morrison. Plaintiff later filed suit against Morrison and Phillips (together, Defendants), alleging fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and negligence, among other claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff only with respect to her negligence claim against Morrison. The jury further found that Plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages and/or was comparatively negligent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) limiting the time the parties had to present the case to the jury; (2) placing limitations on expert testimony; (3) granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Phillips; (4) denying Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to her negligence and breach of warranty claims against Morrison; (5) instructing the jury on comparative negligence; (6) instructing the jury on outrageous conduct; and (7) denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. View "Sneberger v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Patricia Jones (Patricia) and Danny Akers (Danny) divorced. Thereafter, Judy Vannoy Akers (Judy) and Danny married. After Danny died, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Board (Board) awarded Judy disability retirements. Patricia argued that she was entitled to Danny’s West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirement benefits based on the provision for those benefits in her divorce decree. The Board denied benefits on the grounds that there was not an enforceable qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in effect at the time when the survivor benefits were issued to Judy. Both Patricia and Judy challenged the Board’s rulings. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court reversed after invoking its equitable powers to permit the posthumous entry of a QDRO that provided for distribution of Patricia’s equitable interest in the portion of Danny’s retirement assets recognized as marital property, holding (1) the Board erred in granting posthumous disability benefits to Judy rather than preretirement benefits; and (2) Patricia was entitled to seek Danny’s PERS benefits. View "Jones v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Derek S. was convicted of eighty-one counts of sexual offenses involving a minor female child. The circuit court granted the post-trial motion of Derek S. for a new trial based upon the trial court’s failure to strike a juror for cause. The prosecuting attorney sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the order granting Derek S. a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the juror should have been removed from the jury panel for cause, and the error resulted in the State being deprived of a valid conviction. View "State ex rel. Parker v. Hon. Thomas H. Keadle" on Justia Law

The parties in this litigation were involved in an automobile collision at an intersection. Each driver claimed to have the right-of-way at the time of the collision. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging negligence. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial or recess based upon the admission of a 911 call regarding the accident; and (2) denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based upon both the admission of the 911 call and the exclusion of the opinion of the police officer dispatched to the accident on fault in the accident report. View "Browning v. Hickman" on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against their employer and its CEO (collectively, Petitioners) alleging gender discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act and sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment. After a jury trial, Respondents were awarded $250,000 each for emotional distress as compensatory damages and $250,000 each in punitive damages. Petitioners filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and requested a review of the punitive damages award. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motions. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order of the circuit court to the extent that it denied Petitioners’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial on Respondents’ award of compensatory damages for their hostile work environment claims, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support their claims for sexual harassment based on hostile work environment; but (2) reversed the circuit court’s order to the extent that it denied Petitioners’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on Respondents’ award of punitive damages, holding that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the standards for the imposition of punitive damages. View "Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood v. Griffith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually on and behalf of the Estate of Sharon Hanna (the decedent), brought an action against HCR ManorCare, LLC and other entities and individuals engaged in the operation of nursing homes and assisted living facilities (collectively, ManorCare) alleging that the decedent died as a result of substandard care she received at Heartland of Charleston, a ManorCare nursing home. This appeal concerned Plaintiff’s request for production seeking “Center Visit Summaries,” which concerned the treatment of patients at Heartland during the decedent’s residency, and “Briefing Packets,” which consisted of reports and meeting minutes received by the board of directors of each ManorCare corporate entity relating to the decedent’s residency at Heartland. The circuit court directed ManorCare to produce the documents requested. Defendants asked the Supreme Court for relief in prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the circuit court’s orders. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief as moulded, holding (1) ManorCare’s requested relief concerning the Center Visit Summaries was without merit; but (2) the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the production of the board of director Briefing Packets, as the court should have conducted an in camera proceeding to make an independent determination as to whether the Briefing Packets were excluded from discovery pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. View "State ex rel. HCR Manorcare, LLC v. Hon. Stucky" on Justia Law

A driver for Medford Trucking, LLC was injured while his truck was being loaded with coal by employees of Elk Run Coal Co. The driver sued Elk Run. A hauling and delivery agreement between Elk Run and Medford contained an indemnification clause that required Medford to purchase insurance. Accordingly, Medford purchased insurance from four different insurance companies. Elk Run asserted a third-party complaint against the insurers seeking a declaration that there was insurance coverage for the plaintiff’s claim against Elk Run under the policies. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for the insurance companies, and Elk Run’s third-party complaints against the insurers were dismissed with prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to two of the insurers. Remanded. View "Elk Run Coal Co. v. Canopius US Ins., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the willful and knowing violation of the terms of a domestic protective order. After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of burglary by entering without breaking, abduction with the intent to defile, and second degree sexual assault. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner was found guilty of recidivism. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and attendant sentencing, holding (1) Petitioner’s convictions of abduction with intent to defile and second degree sexual assault did not violate Petitioner’s constitutional right against double jeopardy; (2) the State’s evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of the crimes of burglary and second degree sexual assault; (3) the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of abduction with intent to defile; and (4) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error related to Petitioner’s recidivist conviction and sentencing. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the grandparents and temporary guardians of F.R., a three-year-old child, petitioned for guardianship of F.R. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition for guardianship and ordered transfer of the custody of F.R. to Respondent, the child’s biological father, finding that Petitioners had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their appointment as guardians was in the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to apply the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Overfield v. Collins and in ordering transfer of the custody of F.R. to Respondent without requiring clear and convincing evidence of Respondent’s fitness as a parent. Remanded. View "D.B. v. J.R." on Justia Law