Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles revoked the driving privileges of Respondents for driving under the influence of alcohol. After Respondents filed petitions for review of the administrative orders, the circuit courts granted Respondents' motions for stay of the revocation. The Commissioner sought to prohibit the circuit courts from entering orders staying the license revocations of Respondents, alleging that the circuit courts exceeded their jurisdiction and violated the requirements of W. Va. 17C-5A-2(s) and applicable case law by failing to (1) require Respondents to present evidence that there was a substantial probability that Respondents would prevail on the merits and the Respondents would suffer irreparable harm if the orders were not stayed, (2) provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in the orders, and (3) limit the stays to 150 days. The Supreme Court granted the Commission relief in prohibition, holding that the stay orders violated the requirements of section 17C-5A-2(s) and applicable case law, and therefore, the circuit courts exceeded their jurisdiction in granting Respondents' respective motions. View "State ex rel. Miller v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner was employed as a custodian by Respondent, the Board of Education of the County of Raleigh under a 210-day regular contract and thirty-day summer contract that did not include paid vacation days. Petitioner filed a grievance against Respondent in 2007, asserting that Respondent violated the uniformity provisions in W. Va. Code 18A-4-5b and the discrimination prohibition of W. Va. Code 6C-2-2(d) by employing a similarly situated custodian with a 261-day contract that included paid vacation days. The West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board found Petitioner established that Respondent violated sections 18A-4-5b and 6C-2-2(d) but denied both back pay and prospective relief to Petitioner. The circuit court affirmed the denial of relief. Petitioner appealed, seeking lost wages for the school year after which Petitioner initiated his grievance. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of relief to Petitioner, holding that an employee who holds a 210-day regular contract and a thirty-day contract to perform related duties during a summer school term does not perform like assignments and duties with a school service employee who holds a 261-day regular contract for the purpose of the uniformity provisions found in section 18A-4-5b. View "Patterson v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Raleigh" on Justia Law

After Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) notified Petitioner that his license would be revoked for DUI. Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing. Because Petitioner's arresting officer did not appear at the hearing, the Commissioner of the DMV reversed the order of revocation and dismissed the case. Petitioner then pled guilty to DUI. When the DMV received notice of the guilty plea, it revoked Petitioner's license for six months. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of prohibition. The circuit court dissolved the revocation order and reinstated Petitioner's license, finding that the Commissioner's order rescinding the previous administrative revocation served to reinstate Petitioner's license and that subsequent revocation was prohibited by operation of W. Va. Code 17C-5A-1a(d). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and application of section 17C-5A-1a(d) to reverse Petitioner's mandatory revocation. View "Dale v. Knopp" on Justia Law

Brandon White's license was revoked by the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles for driving under the influence of alcohol. Following an unsuccessful challenge before the Office of Administrative Hearings, White filed an appeal in circuit court. The circuit court found White's appeal to be timely. The Commission filed a petition for relief in prohibition, contending that White's appeal was not timely filed, and therefore, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring White's appeal timely. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that White's appeal was not filed within the statutory time limits and, consequently, the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the appeal timely and was prohibited from further consideration of White's appeal. View "State ex rel. Comm'r, Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked Respondent's driver's license for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The circuit court reversed the DMV's order, reasoning that (1) the DMV failed to prove Respondent's alcohol content at the actual time of driving the vehicle; (2) the DMV did not comply with Muscatell v. Cline, which requires a hearing officer to address credibility issues in a reasoned manner; and (3) the failure of the investigating officer to appear at the license revocation hearing required the dismissal of the case against Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the breath test was administered within two hours of Respondent's arrest, the evidence resulting therefrom was admissible as prima facie evidence that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol while driving; (2) Muscatell's requirement in this case was adequately satisfied by the hearing examiner; and (3) the circuit court improperly relied on an outdated rule in finding that dismissal of the case was required where the arresting officer was not present at the hearing. Remanded for reinstatement of the DMV order revoking Respondent's driver's license. View "Dale v. Veltri " on Justia Law

Hospital sought full tax refunds in relation to Hospital's attempt to reclassify certain services from either "inpatient" or "outpatient" hospital services to "physicians' services" for purposes of the West Virginia Health Care Provider Tax Act. The Office of Tax Appeals denied Hospital's request, and the circuit court affirmed. In seeking to reclassify items of overhead as "physicians' services," Hospital focused on its use of certain billing codes that were required by federal law. The Tax Commission argued that Hospital's reliance on these billing codes to identify what qualifies as "physicians' services" under the Act was misplaced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the overhead items at issue did not qualify as "physicians' services" under the Act. View "Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Lorensen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a registered professional nurse, was terminated from her employment when her employer concluded that Petitioner had unlawfully obtained prescription narcotics for personal use or distribution to others. In 2008, Petitioner's employer filed a complaint against Petitioner in that regard with the Board of Examiners for Registered Professional Nurses. Petitioner was subsequently hired at another medical center, and her employment was terminated. In 2009, Petitioner's second employer filed a complaint with the Board, suggesting that Petitioner had unlawfully obtained prescription narcotics for personal use or distribution to others. In 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition asking the Supreme Court to direct the Board to dismiss the 2008 and 2009 complaints, alleging that the Board's continuances of the administrative hearings scheduled to resolve the two complaints were contrary to law, had deprived Petitioner of substantial resources, and had improperly delayed the entry of a final administrative decision. The Supreme Court granted the writ and dismissed the two complaints, holding that the Board effectively denied Petitioner an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the allegations against her. View "State ex rel. Fillinger v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

Employee resigned from her employment with Employer after Employee failed to accommodate Employee's responsibilities regarding daycare for her children. Employee filed for unemployment compensation benefits. An ALJ found Employee was eligible for benefits. The Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia reversed the award of benefits, finding that Employee's departure was not for good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. The circuit court reversed, concluding that Employee was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because Employee had terminated her employment for good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the decision of the Board of Review, holding that Employee terminated her employment voluntarily without good cause involving fault on the part of Employer. View "Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Epling" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the valuation and corresponding tax assessment of seventy-nine condominium units owned by Pope Properties / Charleston LLC (Pope Properties). The Kanawha Assessor determined that for ad valorem tax purposes for 2011, the seventy-nine units should be valued as follows: $63,700 for each of Pope Properties' sixteen one-bedroom units and $70,000 for each of its sixty-three two-bedroom units. The Board of Equalization and Review upheld the determination. Pope Properties appealed, contending that the units should be valued at $42,000 for each of the one-bedroom units and $49,000 for each of the two-bedroom units. At issue on appeal was the Assessor's use of the market data approach in determining the value of the units rather than the income approach to valuation advocated by Pope Properties. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Assessor did not err in choosing or applying the market data approach in this case. View "Pope Props. / Charleston LLC v. Kanawha County Assessor " on Justia Law

In 2004, the Berkeley County Water District and Sewer District filed requests with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to charge capacity improvement fees (CIFs) due to rapid population growth in the county. The PSC approved the requested CIFs. Petitioners subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court, seeking relief from paying the CIFs. The circuit court found that the PSC lacked jurisdiction to establish the CIFs. However, the Supreme Court found Petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the PSC and reversed. Subsequently, the PSC discontinued the CIFs, finding that the Sewer District and Water District no longer satisfied the criteria for charging the CIFs. Thereafter, the PSC granted Petitioners' motion to deny the Water and Sewer Districts' petitions for reconsideration. Petitioners appealed to challenge errors they alleged were contained in the PSC's final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners were judicially estopped from challenging the errors. View "Larry V. Faircloth Realty, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law