Database Search Result Details

First Name Emma
Last Name Berger
Decision Date 4/6/2021
Docket Number 2019-0297-DHHR
ALJ CHL
Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources/Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital
Employment Type STATE
Job Title RN Nurse III Admission Nurse/Supervisor
Topics Dismissal Order
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved that Grievant’s claim does not meet the definition of a grievance and that Grievant has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Outcome Failure to State Claim
Statutes W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-1; W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.2 (2018); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(i); W. Va. Code § 5-16-1
Related Cases Lewis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-20-554 (May 27, 1998); Lowry v. W. Va. Dep’t of Educ., Docket No. 96-DOE-130 (Dec. 26, 1996); Hale v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-315 (Jan. 25, 1996); Payne v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-26-047 (Nov. 27, 1996); Trickett v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-39-413 (May 8, 1996); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); McDaniel v. W. Va. Div. of Labor, 214 W. Va. 719, 591 S.E.2d 277 (2003); Mountaineer Disposal Service, Inc. v. Dyer, 156 W. Va. 766, 197 S.E.2d 111 (1973); Wilson v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2011-1769-DHHR (Oct. 31, 2011); Dooley, et al., v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991); Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002)
Keywords Motion to Dismiss; Relief; Failure to State a Claim; Advisory Opinion
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent as an RN Nurse III. Grievant filed this grievance alleging that someone who worked in Respondent’s human resources department lied to her about how her short term disability benefits worked which resulted in her having to use accrued annual leave and sick leave to cover some of an extended absence, as well as having to go without pay during some of this absence. At the heart of this grievance is a dispute between Grievant and her disability insurance company regarding coverage for the time period she was off work. Respondent has no authority to over the insurance company and no authority to determine insurance coverage. Therefore, Respondent has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant’s claim does not meet the definition of a grievance, that Grievant has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that any decision on the merits of this claim would be an advisory opinion. Accordingly, this grievance is DISMISSED.

Back to Results Search Again