Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Beverly
|
|
Last Name
|
Crews
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/30/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0806-DVA
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Veterans Assistance
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Director of Nursing
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Moot
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether this grievance is moot.
|
|
Outcome
|
Dismissed; Moot
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.2 (2008); W. Va. Code ST. R. § 156-1-6.19; W. Va. Code ST. R. § 156-1-6.19.2; W. Va. Code ST. R. § 156-1-6.19.3
|
|
Related Cases
|
Burkhammer v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Pridemore v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-561 (Sept. 30, 1996); Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009); Priest v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Biggerstaff v. Mingo Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-29-384D (Mar. 24, 2003), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 03-AA-55 (Feb. 10, 2005); Mitias v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Docket No. 05-PSC-107R (Sept. 22, 2010), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 10-AA-185 (Sept. 11, 2012); Miraglia v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-35-270 (Feb. 19, 1993); Carney v. W. Va. Div. of Rehab. Services, Docket No. VR-88-055 (Mar. 28, 1989); Baker v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 97-BOD-265 (Oct. 8, 1997)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Abeyance; Moot; Advisory; Termination; Dismissal; Declaration
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as the Director of Nursing. Grievant filed this action alleging she had been given an improper directive and sought its withdrawal. While this grievance was pending, Grievant was dismissed from her employment and she grieved the same. This matter was placed in abeyance pending the outcome of her separate dismissal grievance. The Grievance Board issued a decision denying Grievant’s dismissal grievance on April 26, 2018. As Grievant is no longer employed by Respondent, any decision on the issue of the alleged improper directive would merely be a declaration that one party is right or wrong, would have no substantive consequence, and would merely be advisory in nature. Therefore, grievance is now moot. Accordingly, this grievance is DISMISSED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again