Database Search Result Details

First Name Brandi
Last Name Davis
Decision Date 11/18/2025
Docket Number 2025-0628-DHF
ALJ KDB
Respondent Department of Health Facilities/ Mildred Mitchell Bateman Hospital
Employment Type State
Job Title Health Service Worker
Topics Disciplinary/ termination
Primary Issues Whether Respondent can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had good cause to dismiss Grievant for insubordination due to her failing to accurately complete her duties, failing to abide by MMBH policies, and falsifying an offical agency record? Whether Grievant can prove that Respondent violated any law, rule, or policy or act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by terminating Grievant's employment? Whether Grievant can prove that mitigation of the punishment was warranted?
Outcome DENIED
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2.a (2022), W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d) (2024), W.Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018).
Related Cases Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Guine v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 149 W. Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965); Drown v. W. Va. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 180 W. Va. 143, 145, 375 S.E.2d 775, 777 (1988) (per curiam); Reynolds v. Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep’t, Docket No. 90-H-128 (Aug. 8, 1990); Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002) (per curiam); Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988), aff’d, Sexton v. Marshall Univ., 182 W. Va. 294, 387 S.E.2d 529 (1989). State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (citing Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982)). Graley v. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991) (citing Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d 579 (1985) and Blake v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 172 W. Va. 711, 310 S.E.2d 472 (1983)); Evans v. Tax & Revenue/Ins. Comm'n, Docket No. 02-INS-108 (Sep. 13, 2002); Crites v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-0890-DHHR (Jan. 24, 2012).Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996).” Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996).’” Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam). ]; Trimboli v. Dep't of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003); Overbee v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources/Welch Emergency Hosp., Docket No. 96-HHR-183 (Oct. 3, 1996); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-01-394 (Jan. 31, 1995). See Martin v. W. Va. State Fire Comm’n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994); Cooper v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-0028-RalED (Apr. 30, 2014), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 14-AA-54 (Jan. 16, 2015).
Keywords Neglect, acute care, duties and expectation, policies and procedures, investigation, abuse, Patient Grievance Review Committee ("PGRC")
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed as a Health Service Worker for the Department of Health Facilities at Mildred Mitchell Bateman Hospital. Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment for Grievant’s neglect of patients by failing to obtain vital signs and documenting false vital signs into the patients’ digital records. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it had good cause to dismiss Grievant for insubordination due to her failing to accurately complete her duties, failing to abide by MMBH policies, and falsifying an official agency record. Respondent did not violate any law, rule, or policy or act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by terminating Grievant’s employment. Grievant failed to prove discrimination or mitigation. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again