Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was a licensed physical therapist and the owner of a therapy center that operated two facilities. The West Virginia Board of Physical Therapy revoked Petitioner's license for failure to properly supervise physical therapist assistants and physical therapy aides employed by him. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly found that Petitioner failed to directly supervise a physical therapy aide who was performing patient treatment; but (2) the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioner failed appropriately to supervise a physical therapist assistant who was performing patient treatment. Remanded. View "Sorongon v. W. Va. Bd. of Physical Therapy" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involved tax assessments for Petitioner's property. In the first appeal, Petitioner challenged the 2010 tax assessment to his property. The Board of Review and Equalization determined that Petitioner's appeal was not timely filed, and the circuit court affirmed. In the second appeal, Petitioner sought to adjust the 2011 assessment of his property, asserting that the Assessor erred in using a cost approach analysis to determine the value of the property to be $7.5 million. The Board ordered that the assessed value be reduced to approximately $6.5 million. The circuit court affirmed the Board's reduction in value. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's orders pertaining to both the 2010 and 2011 assessments, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioner's appeal of the 2010 tax assessment was untimely; and (2) the Board abused its discretion in utilizing a hybrid income approach to adjust the 2011 assessment, and because Petitioner failed to establish that the Assessor's cost approach assessment was erroneous, the 2011 tax assessment for the property should be adjusted to reflect the Assessor's initial cost approach assessment value. View "Lee Trace LLC v. Raynes" on Justia Law

Respondents, owners of coal-bearing properties in Taylor County, challenged tax assessments on their properties during the 2010 tax year. The County Assessor challenged the State Tax Commissioner's appraisals of Respondents' property in hearings before the Board of Equalization and Review after she had previously accepted those appraisals. The Board of Equalization and Review accepted the Assessor's proposed changes and changed the valuations of Respondents' properties, thus increasing the natural resources property tax owed by Respondents. The circuit court reversed the Board's valuation changes, finding that the Assessor violated W. Va. Code 11-1C-10(g) by challenging the Commissioner's appraisals. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to section 11-1C-10(g), upon receiving the appraisal of natural resources property from the Commission, a county assessor may either accept or reject that proposal; (2) if the assessor rejects the appraisal, the assessor must show just cause for doing so; and (3) if the assessor accepts the appraisal, the assessor is foreclosed from later challenging the appraisal. View "Collett v. Eastern Royalty, LLC" on Justia Law

Amanda Dingess was arrested for DUI after Dingess failed three field sobriety tests. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently revoked Dingess's drivers license for the DUI. Dingess filed a request for an administrative hearing, contending that on the night of her arrest she had not driven a car and was not under the influence of alcohol. The Office of Administrative Appeals (OAH) found that the DMV had established that Dingess had operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol on the night of her arrest and upheld the DMV's revocation of Dingess's license. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the OAH erred in finding that Dingess had driven the car. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's reinstatement of Dingess's driving privileges, holding that that the circuit court failed to afford proper deference to the rulings made during the underlying administrative process and that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the administrative license revocation of Dingess. View "Dale v. Dingess" on Justia Law

Petitioner injured her wrist and shoulder at work while assisting a contract employee lift a box of clothes that had been left in Petitioner's office. The Workers' Compensation Board of Review (BOR) denied Petitioner's claim for benefits because Petitioner's injury was not attributable to an injury or disease "in the course of and resulting from" her employment as required by W. Va. Code 23-4-1(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR's decision was neither in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record, nor the result of erroneous conclusions of law. View "Morton v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm'r" on Justia Law

Respondent's vehicle was stopped for swerving and crossing the centerline. Respondent then failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving under the influence. While in the town hall, the officer performed a chemical test of Respondent's breath, and the results indicated Respondent had a blood-alcohol content level of 0.105. Respondent's driver's license was subsequently revoked for six months. The circuit court reversed the Division of Motor Vehicle's (DMV) order and reinstated Respondent's revoked driver's license, concluding that the DMV's revocation order was biased, prejudicial, and reached in a preconceived manner. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the revocation order, holding that the facts provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Respondent was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and thus represented an adequate basis for the DMV to revoke Respondent's driver's license. View "Dale v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Respondent was employed by Petitioner. After Respondent was terminated, she filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated against. The director of operations for the Commission issued a finding that no probable cause was found in Respondent's complaint and ordered it dismissed. After the assistant attorney general (Sheridan) conducted an administrative review hearing, the Commission found probable cause was alleged in the complaint. Sheridan then filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent in proceedings before the Commission. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify Sheridan, arguing that he was conflicted from representing Respondent because he had acted in a judicial capacity while conducting the administrative review. The administrative law judge denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court (1) declined to issue the writ insofar as it requested that Respondent's claims be dismissed; (2) declined to order that a subpoena be issued to allow Petitioner to access documents reviewed during the administrative review; but (3) issued the writ to state that Sheridan could not represent Respondent in proceedings before the Commission. View "State ex rel. Ten S. Mgmt. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Bunch Company filed consumer complaint, alleging that when BrickStreet Mutual Insurance Company became its insurer, BrickStreet wrongfully included a charge for the expense of an agent commission in the workers' compensation premium. The West Virginia Insurance Commissioner denied relief, upholding the previously approved rates. The circuit court reversed and vacated the Commissioner's administrative order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commissioner did not err in allowing BrickStreet to charge Bunch for a non-incurred agent commission; (2) the Commission properly found the insurance rates at issue were reasonable, and the trial court encroached upon a matter that has been expressly delegated to the executive branch by ignoring the deference the Commissioner was entitled to in connection with the interpretation of its own regulation; and (3) this case did not present any factual disputes requiring the Commissioner to hold a hearing. View "W. Va. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bunch Co." on Justia Law

Respondent's employment with the West Virginia Department of Transportation (DOH) was terminated because Respondent allegedly accessed and attempted to access pornographic websites using a computer owned by the State. Emphasizing that the computer was located in a common area for the use of several workers, Respondent denied that he was the offending employee. The Public Employees Grievance Board found in favor of Respondent and directed the DOH to reinstate him to his employment. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DOH did not carry its burden of proving the allegations against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence. View "W. Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Litten" on Justia Law

The City of Fairmont owned and operated Fairmont General Hospital (FGH) until 1985. In 1984, the City Council adopted section 4.06 of the Fairmont City Charter, which provided that the board of directors of the hospital would be appointed by the Council. FGH then became a private, not-for-profit corporation. In 2010, FGH amended its bylaws to provide for appointment of its board members by the board itself, rather than the Council. FGH also amended its articles of incorporation to comport with the amended bylaws. After the Council challenged FGH's authority to make appointments to the hospital board, FGH filed an action seeking a declaration that section 4.06 of the city charter was no longer applicable to the hospital. The City and Council counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that FGH's amended bylaws were void. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither the City nor the Council had standing to challenge, either as ultra vires or as a violation of the city charter, the actions of the hospital's board in amending its bylaws, appointing new members to the board, and amending the articles of incorporation. View "The City of Fairmont v. Fairmont Gen. Hosp., Inc." on Justia Law