David Joseph Gottorff v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Gunnison Colorado

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CAROLEEN JAKMIAN, : No. 266 EAL 2024 : Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the v. : Commonwealth Court : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND : SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA : TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, : : Respondents : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED. Justice Dougherty files a concurring statement.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT PATRICK REIGHARD, : No. 4 MAP 2025 : Appellant : : : v. : : : PA. BD. OF PAROLE, : : Appellee : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2025, as Appellant failed to file a timely brief, this appeal is QUASHED. See Pa.R.A.P. 3305.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2025 Term _______________ FILED June 6, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. No. 23-638 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK _______________ SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA CAITLIN R. WORKMAN, Petitioner v. ACNR RESOURCES, INC., Respondent Appeal from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia Case No. 23-ICA-14 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Submitted: March 5, 2025 Filed: June 6, 2025 J. Thomas Greene Jr., Esq. Aimee M. Stern, Esq. T. Colin Greene, Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP Bailey, Stultz and Greene, PLLC Charleston, West Virginia Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Petitioner JUSTICE WALKER delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BUNN dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. JUSTICE ARMSTEAD dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.  SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “On appeal of a decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the Supreme Court of Appeals is bound by the statutory standards contained in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (eff. Jan. 13, 2022). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, while findings of fact made by the Board of Review are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to be clearly wrong.” Syllabus Point 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024). 2. “If an injured employee provides some evidence to demonstrate that a particular injury did arise from the subject industrial accident, absent evidence which to some degree of certainty attributes the injury to a cause other than the subject accident, it will be presumed to have resulted from such accident.” Syllabus Point 2, Dunlap v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 160 W. Va. 58, 232 S.E.2d 343 (1977). i WALKER, Justice: Petitioner Caitlin Workman was working in a coal mine when a chain under tension snapped and its attached hook struck her right upper extremity area. Shortly after her workplace injuries were held compensable for right shoulder contusion and right back laceration, she developed symptoms including increased pain and weakness of her right arm, right grip strength deficit, and noticeable tremor. In the face of conflicting evidence offered by Ms. Workman’s medical providers and an independent medical examination conducted at the request of her employer, Respondent ACNR Resources, Inc. (ACNR), the claim administrator summarily determined that Ms. Workman had achieved maximum degree of medical improvement (MMI) and suspended her temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. And in its conclusory order, the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed. Ms. Workman now appeals the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirming the Board’s order, arguing that she has not reached MMI and needs additional testing and treatment. We find that the Board contravened West Virginia Code § 23-4-3(a)(1) (2005) by failing to properly consider the evidence before it and clearly erred by finding that Ms. Workman’s symptoms were unrelated to the compensable injury. So, we reverse the ICA decision affirming the Board’s order and remand this matter to the Board to enter an order awarding Ms. Workman TTD benefits from November 9, 2021 through April 9, 2022, and additional testing and treatment as supported by proper medical evidence. 1  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ms. Workman was working as a maintenance trainee for ACNR at a Marshall County coal mine on November 8, 2021, when a chain under tension snapped and its attached hook struck her right upper extremity area. She was taken to Wheeling Hospital by ambulance where she presented with a right shoulder injury and was d

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Department of Human Services, June 4, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. Petitioner C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS v.) No. 24-582 (Berkeley County CC-02-2014-CIG-3) OF WEST VIRGINIA The Honorable Catie Delligatti,1 Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County; Jill B., Petitioner Below and Party in Interest; and William Prentice Young, Guardian ad Litem of the child A.B.,2 Respondents MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner, the West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”),3 seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Berkeley County from enforcing its September 26, 2024 order directing the DHS to pay $10,353.00 in vision care expenses for a child, A.B., who is not in the DHS’s physical or legal custody, is not the subject of any currently pending abuse and neglect 1 After the DHS filed this proceeding, the circuit court judge assigned to the case changed; the presiding judge is now the Honorable Catie Delligatti. Accordingly, the Court has substituted the proper party pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 The DHS lists as respondents to its petition only the circuit court judge and Jill B. The child A.B. is a real party in interest to this petition for writ of prohibition, which relates to an underlying guardianship proceeding. As such, we include A.B., by his guardian ad litem, as a respondent to this proceeding. 3 Petitioner appears by Attorney General John B. McCuskey and Assistant Attorney General Kristen E. Ross. Because a new Attorney General took office while this proceeding was pending, his name has been substituted as counsel. Respondent Jill B. is self-represented, and the guardian ad litem for A.B. is William P. Young. Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. For purposes of abuse and neglect proceedings, the agency is now the Department of Human Services. 1 proceeding, has guardians who were appointed by the circuit court in a private guardianship proceeding, and does not qualify for a subsidized guardianship.4 We find that this case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure for issuance of a memorandum decision rather than an opinion. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the requested writ of prohibition. The private guardianship proceeding underlying this original jurisdiction action was initiated by A.B.’s court-appointed guardians, Jill and Thomas B.5 To provide context for the circuit court’s decision that the DHS seeks to prohibit, we briefly describe the factual circumstances that led to Jill and Thomas B.’s court-appointed guardianship over A.B. Because of the limited record for this matter, the following facts are gleaned from the court’s order, the parties’ briefs, and the DHS’s “Objection to and Motion to Reconsider the Circuit Court’s June 12, 2024, Order,” that it filed in the circuit court. The tragic circumstances that ultimately led to A.B.’s guardianship began when he was conceived. A.B.’s mother, P.B., became pregnant at twelve years old after a family friend raped her. P.B.’s mother became aware of and reported the pregnancy when P.B. was about seven-and- a-half months pregnant. The DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition naming A.B.’s father as an offending parent and identifying his four children, including A.B., as abused and neglected children. P.B. was named in the abuse and neglect petition, but only as A.B.’s non-offending parent, and the court appointed counsel for her. A.B.’s father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to his children, including A.B. The DHS did not file an abuse and neglect petition against P.B.’s mother, S.B., because it determined that S.B. took appropriate action after learning of P.B.’s pregnancy by contacting police, cooperating with the investigation, and preventing contact between P.B. and her assailant. During P.B.’s pregnancy, she met Jill B. through a support program for teenage mothers. After A.B.’