Frazier v. Hensley
| Decision Date | 26 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-1022 |
| Parties | Everett Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of MotorVehicles, Respondent Below, Petitioner v. Justin Hensley, Petitioner Below, Respondent |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Petitioner Everett Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Janet E James, appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's October 8, 2019, order reversing the August 1, 2019, final order of the Office Administrative Hearings ("OAH"), which affirmed the order of revocation issued by the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") on April 15, 2014. Respondent Justin Hensley, by counsel David Pence, filed a response.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence ("DUI") of alcohol on March 23, 2014, and he was issued an order of revocation on April 15 2014.[1] Respondent sought a hearing before the OAH, which was held on July 9, 2015. More than four years later, on August 1, 2019, the OAH entered its final order affirming the order of revocation, which respondent appealed to the circuit court.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on September 20, 2019. Respondent testified that at the time of his hearing before the OAH, he held a job that he was able to perform from his home. In approximately May of 2018, however, respondent took a position with a different organization that required him to "travel across the whole state to provide a STEM curriculum to counties and schools that want it."
Respondent further testified that "[i]t's common knowledge around the office" that his employment with this new employer would be terminated if he did not have a valid license, and before he was hired, he was informed that he was required to have a valid license. Respondent submitted his Team Member Guide-in essence, an employee handbook-which prohibits an employee "from driving on behalf of [employer] if your driver's license is suspended or if your driving privileges have been revoked for any period of time for any reason." The Team Member Guide also specifies that "Team Members in roles that may require driving on behalf of [employer] will be asked to verify they hold a valid license and as part of this policy, are required to report any suspension of driving privileges, regardless of the nature of the suspension." In addition, respondent testified that he could not have a restricted driver's license or interlock system in his car, explaining that, He also said that "that could easily get back to my employer, and that would therefore terminate my employment." Respondent's employer expects respondent to travel with members of the education field, and respondent is his employer's sole employee in West Virginia. Respondent quantified that he drives with either an administrator from the state or with his boss throughout West Virginia "roughly 25 to 30 times a year."
Respondent also acknowledged that his former position ended in May of 2018 because the position itself was terminated:
Melissa Carte, a hearing examiner for the OAH, but not the hearing examiner for respondent's hearing, reviewed respondent's case file. Ms. Carte noted that William Bands, the hearing examiner for respondent's case, heard respondent's case in July of 2015 and submitted a proposed order on October 2, 2018. According to Ms. Carte, during the three-plus years a final order in respondent's case was pending, Mr. Bands's wife became ill and died, and he held over 250 hearings. But Ms. Carte recognized that this case did not involve novel concepts or difficult evidentiary issues, and she therefore believed that respondent's hearing "should have been a quick one." She also acknowledged that it would not be reasonable to intentionally let a case linger for four years.
Ms. Carte also testified that the OAH had issued over 15, 000 orders since 2012.
Ms. Carte testified that neither respondent nor respondent's counsel contacted the OAH to inquire about the order or request that it be expedited.[3] The DMV filed a motion to expedite, but Ms. Carte said that the DMV files a motion to expedite in every case, so "there wasn't much we could do if you file one in every case."
Ms. Carte acknowledged that the OAH has "had an issue with backlog." She attributed the backlog to staffing issues and conflicting orders from the Legislature and this Court regarding the prioritization of case resolution. Ms. Carte testified to steps taken by the OAH to eliminate the backlog, which included the hiring of temporary and contract employees and the creation of a new order template that is "easier to follow . . . [and] to understand." Ms. Carte also identified an anticipated turnaround time of sixty days between a hearing and the issuance of a final order for future cases, but she testified that during the pendency of respondent's case, the OAH had no policy addressing the timeframe for issuing a final order, no penalty for issuing an order years after a hearing, and no electronic reminder system alerting hearing examiners to the age of pending cases. Ms. Carte further acknowledged that the OAH operated with a budget surplus in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, so the delay in this case was not caused by a lack of funding.
The circuit court reversed the OAH's final order on October 8, 2019, finding that the OAH's delay in issuing the final order violated respondent's constitutional right to due process of law. The court recounted that respondent's employment requires that he drive his supervisor, school administrators, and other professionals on a regular basis, and his Team Member Guide specified that he needed to maintain a valid driver's license and prohibited him from driving during work hours if his license was revoked for any reason. The court also highlighted respondent's testimony that he was confident his employment would be terminated if his license were revoked.
The court found that if the OAH had timely ruled after the revocation hearing, respondent would have suffered no detriment to his employment, as his employment at the time of the hearing did not require the use of a valid driver's license. The court also found that, other than documenting its work volume, the OAH produced no meaningful justification for the delay. The DMV's sole act to expedite the handling of this case was filing a motion more than three years after the hearing was held requesting that a decision be rendered. But because the DMV filed similar motions in all cases pending before the OAH, "the net impact of that action did not result in decisions being expedited." Consequently, the court found that "the prejudice suffered as a result of the post-hearing delay outweighs the reasons offered by [the DMV] for the delay." This appeal followed.
To continue reading
Request your trial