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

The consolidated cases presented certified questions on whether the assignment of legal malpractice claims is valid and enforceable under West Virginia law or void as contrary to public policy. In the underlying disputes, plaintiffs received assignments of malpractice claims against attorneys as part of settlements in prior litigation involving deliberate intent, wrongful discharge, and malicious prosecution claims. The court held that assignments of legal malpractice claims are void as a matter of law. It reasoned that such claims are rooted in the personal attorney-client relationship and that allowing assignment would undermine the legal profession and the justice system, precluding case-by-case determinations of validity.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, homeowners who took out a construction loan from Blue Ridge Bank (later succeeded by City National Bank) sued the bank after it failed to disclose a third-party inspection report revealing serious defects in their home's construction, which the bank had commissioned and paid for using loan proceeds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank, finding no duty to disclose the report. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the specific facts—including the bank's active involvement in overseeing the project, its control over disbursements, and its independent procurement of the report—created a special relationship that imposed a duty on the bank to share the unfavorable findings with the borrowers before they agreed to convert the loan. The court reasoned that this relationship went beyond a standard lender-borrower arrangement and required disclosure of material information known to the bank but not the borrowers.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a workplace car accident on a private mine access road where plaintiff Randle Miller collided with defendant Randall Jeffrey, who was driving for Laurel Coal Corp.; Miller sued Jeffrey, Laurel Coal on a respondeat superior theory, and Hobet Mining for road design, alleging injuries including a broken pelvis. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hobet, permitted evidence and closing argument suggesting Miller was not wearing a seatbelt, refused a jury instruction directing the jury not to consider seatbelt use in assessing negligence, and the jury returned a defense verdict finding Jeffrey not negligent. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that without the requested instruction the seatbelt evidence and argument could have misled the jury on the negligence determination.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case consolidated two appeals by workers' compensation claimants with back injuries who challenged initial disability ratings based on the Diagnostic-Related Estimate (DRE) model from the AMA Guides. The Office of Judges had rejected DRE examinations as unreliable and awarded higher ratings under the Range of Motion (ROM) model, but the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board reinstated the lower DRE awards. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that DRE-based evaluations are invalid because they conflict with the requirement that workers' compensation statutes be liberally construed in favor of employees and that evidentiary doubts be resolved for claimants. The court reasoned that the DRE model's categorical approach fails to account adequately for individual impairments in a manner consistent with state law, while the ROM model better aligns with the statutory mandate.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved eight coal miners who sued Consolidation Coal Company under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, claiming the company discriminated against them based on age when closing the Arkwright mine by offering transfers to younger employees while leaving older ones to be terminated. After a jury trial resulted in a verdict for the company, the plaintiffs appealed, arguing errors in the exclusion of rebuttal witnesses and, more importantly, the refusal to admit evidence that the company had used alternative layoff procedures at other sites that would have reduced the disproportionate impact on older workers. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the judgment, holding that such evidence of alternative procedures was relevant to the plaintiffs' theory of discriminatory intent in the selection of the performance-based transfer method. The court reasoned that this evidence could show the company's chosen process was not necessary or was pretextual, without improperly second-guessing business decisions, and remanded for a new trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this tort case arising from a 1998 car accident in West Virginia, the plaintiffs sued the at-fault driver and later continued the action against their underinsured motorist insurer, State Farm, after settling with the original defendants. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice as a sanction after plaintiff Milton Mills failed to attend a scheduled independent medical examination shortly before trial, amid miscommunications about the reason for his absence. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the dismissal, holding that the sanction was unduly harsh given the circumstances, including the lack of a prior motion to compel and the parties' apparent shared expectation of a continuance.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Bohon, the defendant appealed his conditional guilty plea to second-degree murder after the trial court denied motions in limine to exclude a co-defendant's prior trial testimony and statements the defendant made to his wife. The West Virginia Supreme Court applied de novo review to the evidentiary rulings. The State conceded that admitting the unavailable co-defendant's testimony would violate the confrontation clause. The court also examined whether the marital privilege was waived by the presence of the couple's infant child during the statements and by the defendant's later disclosures to third parties.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved CB&T Operations and its parent company challenging use tax assessments imposed by the West Virginia Tax Commissioner on lease payments for data-processing equipment and related assets transferred between subsidiaries of a bank holding company. The lower court upheld the assessments as taxable business activity, but the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, finding the transactions exempt from use tax. The court reasoned that the leases qualified for statutory exemptions applicable to services provided among commonly-controlled business enterprises under W. Va. Code §§ 11-15A-3(a)(2) and 11-15-9(a)(24).

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case arose after Diana Slider was injured in a 1992 car accident; the Sliders obtained a $336,000 verdict against the at-fault drivers and their insurers, then sought consequential damages from their own UIM carriers (State Farm and Erie) under Marshall v. Saseen, which the trial court denied. They later filed a separate action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith, unfair claims settlement practices, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the insurers' handling of the UIM claims and litigation conduct. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the insurers on res judicata grounds, but the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the new claims were not precluded under West Virginia's same-evidence test for claim preclusion because they rested on different facts and legal theories than the earlier Marshall motion. The court therefore allowed the bad-faith and tort claims to proceed.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a defendant charged with misdemeanor traffic offenses in magistrate court who failed to request a jury trial within the required twenty days after his initial appearance, as mandated by W. Va. Code § 50-5-8(b) and Rule 5(c). After the magistrate denied his late request without a hearing on whether 'unavoidable cause' excused the delay under Rule 26(b)(3), the defendant sought a writ of prohibition or mandamus in circuit court, which was denied. The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding that a magistrate court must provide a defendant a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument on unavoidable cause before denying a jury trial request. The core reasoning was that the procedural rules contemplate such a hearing to allow a meaningful record for appellate review, and without it, remedies like appeal would be inadequate.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Helen Foster and her late husband against neurosurgeon Dr. Hossein Sakhai. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Sakhai operated on the wrong part of Mr. Foster's brain, removing healthy tissue instead of a tumor shown on an MRI, which led to additional surgeries, complications, and reduced quality of life before Mr. Foster's death. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $800,000, but the trial court granted a new trial, citing confusion in the jury instructions and improper comments by plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments about damage caps. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed that decision, holding that any errors were harmless and did not warrant overturning the verdict. The court remanded the case for reinstatement of the jury's award.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Woodrum v. Johnson, plaintiffs sued a physician for medical malpractice and the hospital under a theory of ostensible agency for vicarious liability, after the physician allegedly failed to diagnose and treat an infection. The plaintiffs settled with and released the physician while expressly reserving their claims against the hospital, but the hospital sought summary judgment arguing that the release of the agent necessarily released the principal under common-law principles. The circuit court certified the question to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which answered in the negative and held that the settlement did not automatically release the hospital. The court reasoned that West Virginia had never adopted the common-law rule from other jurisdictions, that a release of a primarily liable party should not have the unintended effect of extinguishing claims against derivatively liable parties, and that the explicit reservation of rights in the settlement agreement supported allowing the claims to proceed.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Gamble, defendant Dean Gamble appealed his 1-to-3-year sentence for attempted forgery after pleading guilty, arguing he should receive credit for additional time served in North Carolina jails before West Virginia authorities placed a detainer on him. The circuit court had granted credit only for 106 days corresponding to periods after the September 1999 detainer and after his guilty plea. On de novo review of the relevant statutes governing credit for time served, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that Gamble was not entitled to credit for the earlier period when no detainer had been filed and he remained in North Carolina custody solely on local charges.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Juanita Martin, substituted as appellant after her husband Dana Martin's death, appealing the denial of his claim for an increase in permanent total disability benefits for occupational pneumoconiosis contracted during his twenty years as a coal miner. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's affirmance of the denial, which had followed rulings by the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board and Office of Judges limiting him to a 50 percent permanent partial disability award. The court determined that Mr. Martin's death from unrelated causes before final resolution did not affect the claim's outcome and that the evidence supported awarding permanent total disability benefits. The opinion applied standards of review distinguishing factual findings (reviewed for plain error) from legal conclusions (subject to full review) under West Virginia workers' compensation statutes.

labor & employment