Warren R. McGraw

The case involved claims by Bernard Boggs, as administrator of his wife's estate, against a hospital, an anesthesiology group, and a doctor following Hilda Boggs's death after she received spinal anesthesia for ankle surgery in 2001. Boggs alleged medical negligence in the administration of anesthesia as well as separate claims for fraud, spoliation of evidence, and related torts arising from an alleged cover-up, and he filed multiple lawsuits with disputes over compliance with pre-filing requirements. The court addressed whether all claims were subject to the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), including its mandates for notices of claim and certificates of merit served at least 30 days before suit. It held that the MPLA governed the entire action. The core reasoning was that the common gravamen of all theories of relief was the provision or failure to provide appropriate medical care.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether a 1986 oil and gas lease granted the lessee, Energy Development Corporation, the rights to extract coalbed methane from the lessors' coal seams on two tracts in West Virginia. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the lease did not convey such rights in the absence of specific language or other indications of intent. The court's reasoning centered on the historical treatment of coalbed methane as a dangerous byproduct of coal mining rather than a component of oil and gas, the absence of any explicit reference to coalbed methane or drilling into coal seams in the lease, and the principle that ambiguous grants in leases are construed against the lessee who drafted the document.

property

The case involved three men convicted of sexual offenses involving minors who challenged the retroactive application of amendments to the West Virginia Sex Offender Registration Act requiring lifetime registration and active public disclosure of their personal information via meetings and the internet. They sought injunctive relief from the circuit court to block these requirements and requested individualized hearings to demonstrate rehabilitation and limit disclosure based on re-offense risk, arguing violations of the ex post facto and due process clauses of the West Virginia Constitution. The lower court denied the injunction, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The court held that the registration and disclosure provisions were civil and regulatory in nature rather than punitive, so they did not violate ex post facto protections, and due process did not entitle the appellants to risk-assessment hearings before public disclosure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves thousands of current and former railroad employees suing railroads and product manufacturers for injuries from asbestos exposure in rail equipment. Manufacturers moved for summary judgment on the ground that federal statutes—the Safety Appliance Act, Federal Railroad Safety Act, and Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act—preempt the state tort claims. The trial court denied the motions and certified preemption questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The court answered only the third question, holding that the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act preempts state tort claims against manufacturers of locomotive parts and components because the Act comprehensively regulates locomotive safety and thereby occupies the field.

federal powertorts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involves a medical negligence lawsuit filed by parents on behalf of their injured infant daughter against a doctor, hospital, and state university board entities, alleging harm during delivery at Cabell Huntington Hospital in Cabell County. The circuit court dismissed the action for improper venue in Kanawha County, determining that the relevant state board (Marshall University Board of Governors) was not a state agency conferring venue there under W.Va.Code § 14-2-2 and that venue properly lay in Cabell County. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding that venue is proper in Kanawha County because the statute requires suits against state agencies to be brought there, even when state liability insurance is involved and the Attorney General may participate in defense. The core reasoning emphasized that the purpose of the venue statute—to allow state functionaries to defend in the seat of government—remains applicable despite the board's statutory replacement and insurance coverage.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case concerns a discovery dispute arising from a bad faith and unfair trade practices lawsuit filed after a wrongful death action involving an underinsured motorist claim against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The petitioners, including the insurer, its claims representative, and former attorneys, sought a writ of prohibition to block enforcement of a trial court order compelling production of their litigation file and redacted portions of the claim file, arguing these materials were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals determined that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to apply the proper legal standards for evaluating those privileges. Accordingly, the court prohibited production of the documents pending renewed motions and correct application of the relevant principles by the lower court.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory