Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A student-athlete was ejected from a high school football game for allegedly committing a flagrant personal foul. Because the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (SSAC) does not allow participation in the game following an ejection, the student-athlete was suspended from playing in the next game. The SSAC refused to review the student-athlete’s administrative appeal, instead invoking its non-review of ejections rule. The student-athlete sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction from the circuit court, arguing that the SSAC’s non-review of ejections rule violated the Legislature's requirement that the SSAC provide a “proper review procedure.” The circuit court enjoined the SSAC from enforcing its penalty against the student-athlete, finding that that the SSAC violated the Legislature’s requirement that the SSAC provide a proper review procedure. The SSAC sought a writ of prohibition to halt enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the SSAC’s non-review of ejections rule violates the Legislature’s requirement that the SSAC provide a proper review procedure. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Secondary Sch. Activities Comm’n v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a complaint against Petitioners alleging that Petitioners placed certain impediments and obstructions within a twenty-foot right-of-way that existed over a paved roadway that provided deeded access to Respondent’s property. Respondent sought a permanent injunction against the placement of impediments in the right-of-way. The circuit court permanently enjoined Petitioners from placing any impediments or obstructions within the right-of-way. The court also concluded that Respondent had a prescriptive easement for the location of his water line through Petitioner’s property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting injunctive relief to Respondent prohibiting Petitioner from placing obstructions in Respondent’s easement and concluded that the current location of Respondent’s water line was an appurtenant prescriptive easement through Petitioners’ property. View "Weatherholt v. Weatherholt" on Justia Law

Patricia Powell filed this medical malpractice action against Dr. Todd Tallman, alleging that Dr. Tallman was medically negligent in causing the death of her spouse. During discovery, Powell moved to exclude from trial the opinions that were set out in a supplemental expert witness disclosure submitted by Dr. Tallman, alleging that the disclosure was made to Powell’s counsel a significant time after the deadline for making such disclosures. The trial court granted the motion. Dr. Tallman then invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court committed error as a matter of law in precluding Dr. Tallman’s experts from presenting their additional opinions at trial. View "State ex re. Tallman v. Hon. Susan B. Tucker" on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife were guests at the hotel of the Mardi Gras Casino and Resort (Casino) when Petitioner was injured when he fell off a retaining wall between the hotel and the Casino onto the roadway. Petitioner filed a complaint against the Casino, alleging negligence for its failure to protect him from the dangerousness of the retaining wall. Casino moved for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner was a trespasser rather than a business invitee at the time of his injury. The trial court granted the motion, concluding (1) by proceeding down a hillside rather than utilizing a skyway bridge or the roadway, Petitioner exceeded the scope of his invitation as an invitee and became a trespasser; and (2) under the standard of care that governs trespass, the Casino did not breach the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that factual issues existed as to whether Petitioner acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the scope of his invitation to use the Casino premises, and those issues should be resolved by a jury. View "Ragonese v. Racing Corp. of W. Va." on Justia Law

Ray Toney, a former employee of Citynet, LLC, filed an action seeking to redeem the vested balance of his Employee Incentive Plan account. The circuit court grant partial summary judgment to Toney, concluding that Toney was entitled to payment of his entire vested balance in the Plan, that Citynet’s failure to pay Toney his vested balance violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), and that Citynet was liable to Toney for liquidated damages, the costs of the action, and reasonable attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Toney or in applying the WPCA; but (2) erred in setting the date from which prejudgment interest would accrue and in failing to offset its award by the amount that Toney previously had received from his Plan account. View "Citynet, LLC v. Toney" on Justia Law

Certain trustees registered trust deed assignments securing the payment of a promissory note for the purchase of residential real estate with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) rather than recording the trust deed assignments in county record books. Wyoming County and all other similarly situated West Virginia Counties (“Wyoming County”) filed a putative class action against the trustees, alleging that the recording of trust deed assignments in county record books is required by law. The circuit court denied the trustees’ motion to dismiss, ruling that trust deed assignments are required to be publicly recorded and that Wyoming County was entitled to show that the trustees had been unjustly enriched by using MERS to record the assignments. The trustees challenged that ruling in this original proceeding in prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the trustees’ motion to dismiss, as West Virginia law does not require that the assignment of a trust deed must be recorded in the office of the clerk of the county commission. View "State ex rel. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Hon. Warren R. McGraw" on Justia Law

The Lewis County Board of Education (Board) terminated Michael Holden’s employment as a school bus driver due to his physical inability to safely perform his job duties. Holden filed a grievance with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board, alleging, among other things, that the Board’s denial of his request for a leave of absence was improper. The grievance board upheld the Board’s decision on all issues, determining that Holden was properly terminated and that his grievance on the leave of absence issue was not timely filed. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the Board improperly terminated Holden and that Holden timely filed his grievance of the Board’s denial of his request for a leave of absence. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and reinstated the grievance board’s decision, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) setting aside the grievance board’s decision, as the Board did not err in terminating Holden based on physical incompetency; and (2) finding that Holden did not timely file his grievance as to the leave of absence issue. View "Lewis County Bd. of Educ. v. Holden" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a claim for workers’ compensation for her peripheral neuropathy that she developed due to toxic exposure to heavy metals at the workplace. The claim was ruled compensable. Petitioner subsequently began intravenous chelation therapy at her physician’s office, a treatment that was medically necessary to treat Petitioner’s compensable condition. Petitioner sought reimbursement for those medical expenses. An administrative law judge with the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges concluded that reimbursement was appropriate. The Workers' Compensation Board of Review reversed, concluding that reimbursement for these medical expenses was precluded pursuant to West Virginia Code of State Rules 85-20-62.2, under which a claimant will be denied reimbursement for intravenous chelation therapy performed in an office. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 85-20-62.2 unreasonably denies reimbursement when such treatment is medically necessary, in contravention of W. Va. Code 23-4-3, and it is therefore invalid. Remanded for entry of an order directing that Petitioner’s reasonable expenses for medically necessary chelation therapy be reimbursed. View "Moore v. K-Mart Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder in the first degree, three counts of malicious assault, and other offenses arising from Defendant’s acts of deliberately shooting a man twice in the back and, in the process, accidentally shooting an eight-year-old girl. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding, primarily, that the circuit court erred in allowing a witness to make a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment without requiring the witness invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury, thus violating Defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Herbert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans, Inc., alleging that Quicken committed common law fraud and violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with a loan agreement between Plaintiff and Quicken. The circuit court found in favor of Plaintiff on all but one of her claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, concluding that the circuit court improperly cancelled Plaintiff’s obligation to repay the loan principal, failed to support its punitive damages award with the correct analysis, and failed to offset the compensatory damages award against Plaintiff’s pretrial settlement with defendants who did not proceed to trial. After remand, the circuit court entered an opinion and order. The Supreme Court again reversed, holding that the circuit court (1) improperly created a lien on Plaintiff’s property; (2) erred in increasing the compensatory damages award to Plaintiff; (3) erred in awarding attorney fees and costs for both the first appellate proceeding and the post-appellate proceedings; (4) improperly increased the punitive damages award; and (5) erred in refusing to offset Plaintiff’s award of attorney fees and costs by a pretrial settlement between Plaintiff and the codefendants. Remanded. View "Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law