Oct. 30
Andrew Bland and D. Lindsay Aldridge vs. Dave Roberts, St. Andrews United Methodist Church, Dr. Tom McDowell and the West Virginia United Methodist Conference
PA– Ginny A. Conley; J– Reed
* The plaintiffs are suing the defendants for emotional distress caused by Roberts, who they allege inappropriately touched their genitals after falling asleep at a “lock-in” held at St. Andrews on Oct. 30. 2010. They seek unspecified damages, attorneys fees and court costs.
Case number: 12-C-490

Nov. 7
Krystal L. Kerby, individually, and as the parent and next friend of Kiersten B. and Addisyn M. Kerby vs. Parkersburg Utility Board.
PA– Scott H. Kaminski; J– Reed
* The plaintiff is suing the defendant for injuries she sustained on Aug. 19, 2011, when, while walking along Washington Avenue with her daughters, she says she fell into an unsecure water meter. She seeks unspecified damages, attorneys fees and interest.
Case number: 12-C-496

Nov. 26
Mountaineer Grading Company vs. Wood County Airport Authority
PA– Johnson W. Gabhart; J– Waters
* The plaintiff, a defunct Clendenin-based business, is suing the defendant for breach of contract over allegedly failing to provide a proper “borrowing” area and sediment pond for improvements made to one of the runways in 2006 and 2007 which resulted in, among other things, construction delays, a loss of $1.3 million, including fines levied by the state Department of Environmental Protection and the ultimate closure of the company in 2010. It seeks $3 million in compensatory, and $10 million in consequential damages.
Case number: 12-C-536

Nov. 27
Estate of Frances L. Hardman vs. William and Cathy Harrison
PA– John Woods; J– Beane
* The plaintiff is suing the defendants for allegedly converting $17,036.87 from Hardman’s account at Community Bank and signing the deed on her home on 27th St. in Parkersburg over to them while acting as Hardmans’ power of attorney from August 2011 until her death on June 4. Hardman’s son, Gary, was appointed administrator of the estate on July 5 and seeks an order returning all property obtained by the Harrisons to it.
Case number: 12-C-540

Bell

PARKERSBURG – A Wood County couple are suing Biomet after they claim it misrepresented that its M2a Magnum Hip System was safe when it had knowledge of the system’s defects.

Biomet Orthopedics was also named as a defendant in the suit.

On July 8, 2008, Greg West underwent a surgical procedure to implant the M2a Magnum Hip System into his hip, according to a complaint filed Feb. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia’s Parkersburg Division.

West claims the M2a Magnum Hip System was defective and it failed, which caused him severe pain.

On Oct. 15, West underwent a complex, risky and painful surgery to remove the failed M2a Magnum Hip System from his body, according to the suit.

West claims revision surgeries are generally more complex, usually take longer to be done and have a higher rate of complications than original hip surgeries.

Having to go through a revision surgery has subjected West to much greater risks of future complications that he had before the revision surgery, according to the suit.

West claims at the time of his original surgery in 2008, there had already been more than 100 reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum filed with the FDA and Biomet knew that the product was defective.

Biomet refused to disclose the information to West, his physicians or the public and instead, misrepresented to West and his orthopedic surgeon that the M2a Magnum was safe and effective, according to the suit.

West and his wife, Susan West, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. They are being represented by Harry F. Bell Jr. and Daniel C. Burke.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia-Parkersburg Division case number: 6:13-cv-2217

Jan. 9
Naomi Davis vs. Northwest Pipe Company
PA– Ginny A. Conley; J– Reed
* The plaintiff is suing the defendant, an Oregon corporation, for wrongful termination after she was fired on July 12 after reporting quality and safety concerns to management on June 3. She seeks unspecified damages, interest, court costs and attorneys fees.
Case number: 13-C-12

Jan. 10
Belinda M. McConaha, administratrix of the estate of Michael P. McConaha vs. Mahyar Tahbaz, D.O., Mark Perni, D.O, Best Practices of West Virginia, Inc., Best Practices, Inc. and Weatherby Locums, Inc.
PA- J. Michael Benninger and James I. Stealey; J– Reed
* The plaintiff is suing the defendants over the death of her husband, who allegedly died of congestive heart failure caused by a prosthetic mitral valve thrombosis from an administration of Vitamin K sometime between Oct. 30 and Nov. 1, 2010. She seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys fees and court costs.
Case number: 13-C-15

Jan. 14
Marvin Edwards vs. Dustin Huffman, D.D.S., Henry Schein, Inc. and DentAmerica
PA– Brian J. Headley; J – Reed
* The plaintiff, a Reedsville, Ohio, resident, is suing the defendants for injuries she sustained when Huffman, a Vienna dentist, used a scaler manufactured by DentAmerica, a City of Industry, Calif.-based business, and distributed by Henry Schein, a Melville, N.Y- based business, to spray water beneath her gums to remove plaque, which became overheated and burned her mouth and lip, the complaint alleges. She seeks unspecified damages, attorneys fees and court costs.
Case number: 13-C-18

Dec. 7
City of Williamstown vs. Jason Westfall
PA– C. Blaine Myers; J– Beane
* The plaintiff is seeking an order declaring a dog owned by the defendant to be dangerous and euthanasia, if necessary.
Case number: 12-C-562

Kathie J. Ball vs. Rammy S. Gold, M.D. and PARS Associates
PA– J. Michael Benninger; J– Waters
* The plaintiff, a Coolville, Ohio, resident, is suing the defendants for medical malpractice after Gold on Jan. 23, 2012, allegedly damaged her thoracic duct during surgery, causing a continuous leakage of lymphatic fluid. She seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys fees and court costs.
Case number: 12-C-564

Dec. 10
Debora L. Mayle vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Cindy Palm and Karl J. Boelter
PA– Walt Auvil; J– Reed
* The plaintiff is suing the defendants for wrongful termination after she was fired on Oct. 3, 2011, allegedly for reporting racial and sexual harassment at the Washington Works plant going back to 2008. She seeks unspecified damages, reinstatement, lost wages and benefits, court costs and attorneys fees.
Case number: 12-C-565

Dec. 18
Carissa and Daniel Hammonds vs. Riverview Cemetery Associates and Five Oaks Management, Inc.
PA– David M. Adkins; J– Waters
* The plaintiffs, residents of Stephens City, Va., are suing the defendants for injuries Carissa allegedly sustained on July 14, 2010, when attending a funeral for her grandfather. She says she fell into a hole at Riverview in Williamstown and broke her left ankle. David makes a claim for loss of consortium. They seek unspecified damages, interest and court costs.
Case number: 12-C-591

Dec. 31
Camden-Clark Medical Center vs. Amedisys of West Virginia, Inc.
PA– Edward L. Harman, Jr.; J– Beane
* The plaintiff is suing the defendant, a Baton Rouge, La.-based business, for breach of contract in allegedly failing to render payment for services provided to one of its hospice patients, Seth E. Clevenger, from March 29 until April 28, 2010. It seeks judgment for the outstanding balance of $9, 623 plus interest and court costs.
Case number: 12-C-607

PARKERSBURG – Officials in one Wood County municipality are asking for a judge’s help in putting a collar on an allegedly vicious dog.

The City of Williamstown on Dec. 7 filed suit against Jason Westfall. In its complaint, the City alleges Westfall’s dog is a menace to the community.

According to the complaint, the Williamstown Police Department on Aug. 29 investigated an allegation that the dog, whose name and breed is not specified, bit a juvenile identified by the initials T.V.C. The incident occurred away from Westfall’s home on Woodview Circle.

Almost two months to the day later, WPD received another complaint that the dog bit a child. According to the complaint, the dog, while chained at a location away from Westfall’s home, broke free and attacked a juvenile identified by the initials J.E.L.

In its suit, the city says Westfall has violated state law by “own[ing], keep[ing] or harbor[ing] any dog know by him to be vicious, dangerous or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons…”

Because of that, it seeks a court order declaring the dog to be vicious or dangerous, and requiring Westfall to take measures to keep the dog from biting other people.

As a last resort, the city asks the dog be euthanized. However, a state Supreme Court ruling issued a month before the complaint was filed says the destruction of a dog can only come about as a result of criminal proceedings and not a civil lawsuit.

“For a magistrate or circuit court to obtain authority to order a dog killed, the magistrate or judge must first find, upon conducting a criminal proceeding, that a crime… has been committed,” Justice Brent Benjamin wrote in the opinion.

“This court holds that the authority to order a dog killed… stems solely from a criminal proceeding, and a private cause of action may not be brought for the destruction of a dog.”

Records show Westfall was served with a summons, a copy of the complaint on Dec. 11. As of presstime, he has not filed an answer or any responsive pleading.

Parkersburg attorney C. Blaine Myers represents the City. The case is assigned to Judge J.D. Beane.

Wood Circuit Court case number 12-C-562

PARKERSBURG – A circuit judge has ruled a Wood County family law judge erred in ordering a Parkersburg man to support a child who’s no longer his.

Judge J.D. Beane on Jan. 22 granted Larry Ryan’s writ of prohibition against Judge Brian C. Dempster. In his writ, Ryan argued Dempster usurped his authority by making him pay child support for a daughter from whom the state severed his parental rights two years ago.

According to Ryan’s petition, his ex-wife, Destiny, initiated divorce proceedings against him in 2010. The reasons for the divorce are not stated.

A year later, the state Department of Health and Human Resources initiated abuse and neglect proceedings against Ryan regarding the welfare of his daughter, Grace. Though it is unclear the specific reasons for DHHR’s actions, the petition says Senior Status Cabell Circuit Judge John Cummings on March 29 terminated Ryan’s parental rights.

No reason is given why Cummings was appointed to the case. Nevertheless, the petition states Cummings’ order also relieved Ryan of his obligation to pay Destiny child support.

Following a hearing on May 29, Dempster on June 12 finalized the Ryans’ divorce and “imposed a child support obligation” on Larry. The amount is not specified.

On a date not specified, Destiny petitioned to hold Larry in contempt for failing to pay child support. Dempster on Sept. 11 ordered Larry to appear on a date not specified to answer Destiny’s contempt petition.

In his writ, Larry averred that Destiny was aware of Cummings’ March 29 order, but failed to appeal it. As such, he argued the “Wood County Family Court exceeded its legal and lawful jurisdiction by imposing a child support obligation in its Order June 12, 2012,” and allowing enforcement of the that order “is tantamount to permitting the Wood County Family Court to overrule the Wood County Circuit Court, which would be clearly improper given that the Family Court answers to the circuit court and not vice versa.”

In his order granting Ryan’s writ, Beane provided no commentary. However, he made clear the writ only prohibited enforcement any child support payments, and instructed DHHR to amend its records reflecting that.

Larry was represented by Michelle Rusen with the Parkersburg law firm of Rusen and Auvil while Parkersburg attorney George Y. Chandler II represented Destiny.

Wood Circuit Court case number 12-P-155

Jan. 18
Marvin B. Lanham vs. Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corp. and Ivan Cao Nguyen, M.D.
PA– Richard D. Lindsay; J– Reed
* The plaintiff, a Washington County, Ohio, resident, is suing the defendants for medical malpractice after Nguyen on July 5, 2011, allegedly failed to diagnose compartment syndrome in Lanham’s right leg resulting in its amputation. He seeks unspecified damages, interest, court costs and attorneys fees.
Case number: 13-C-22

Jan. 23
M.S. vs. Allegan, Inc.
PA– Todd Wiseman; J– Beane
* The plaintiff is suing the defendant for breach of contract for allegedly failing to honor the warranty of breast implants she had implanted on June 22, 2009, but later removed on Nov. 7, 2011. She seeks damages to include the cost of the implants, $3,704.80, and attorneys fees.
Case number: 13-C-26

Jan. 24
Crystal Umensetter vs. John Mullen, M.D.
PA– William O. Merriman; J– Reed
* The plaintiff, a Walker resident, is suing the defendant, a North Carolina physician, for allegedly failing to properly fix a fracture of her right ankle on Oct. 23, 2010. She seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys fees and court costs.
Case number: 13-C-37

Feb. 1
JoAnn Harden, individually and as the executrix of the estate of Marylyn Jane Sheppard vs. Robert T. Sheppard
PA– William R. Summers: J– Reed
* The plaintiff, a Davisville resident, is suing the defendant, a Mineral Wells resident, for allegedly failing to render to Marylyn’s estate its portion of a life estate she had in Sheppard Farms that Robert and his wife sold on Sept. 14, 2007 for $189,049. Marylyn died on April 16 with her estate owed $85,746.95. Harden seeks $125,000 in damages, interest and attorneys fees.
Case number: 13-C-48

Feb. 6
Texanna Fernandez vs. West Virginia University at Parkersburg
PA– pro se; J– Beane
* The plaintiff, a Parkersburg resident, is suing the defendant for breach of contract for its alleged failure to abide by the Student Code of Conduct in conducting a hearing on unspecified charges while she was student at WVUP during the fall of 2012. She seeks $37,000 in damages plus court costs and attorneys fees.
Case number: 13-C-56

Josh and Sarah Halatek vs. Stoney Creek Log Structures, LLC, Morlan Enterprises, Inc. and Michael A. McKain
PA– George J. Cosenza; J– Waters
* The plaintiffs, residents of Washington County, Ohio, are suing the defendants for breach of contract after they hired Morlan, a Parkersburg business, in February 2012 to construct a home designed by Stoney Creek, a Mineral Wells business, but allegedly failed to complete the home within a year. They seek unspecified damages and interest.
Case number: 13-C-56

St. Andrew’s United Methodist in Parkersburg is where two teens say in a lawsuit they were molested by one of their chaperones during a a church-sponsored “lock-in” nearly 2 1/2 years ago. Both SAUMC, and the chaperone, Dave Roberts, deny the allegations and have asked the suit be dismissed.

PARKERSBURG – Two Wood County teens are alleging one of their chaperones at a church social function took advantage of them.

St. Andrews United Methodist Church and Dave Roberts are named as co-defendants in a lawsuit filed by Andrew Bland and D. Lindsay Aldridge. In their complaint filed Oct. 30 in Wood Circuit Court, Bland and Aldridge allege Roberts two years earlier inappropriately touched them when they fell asleep during a “lock-in” at the church.

According to their suit, Bland and Aldridge were among “several other juveniles and young adults” who participated in a “lock-in” at SAUMC on Oct. 30, 2010. A “lock-in,” the suit says, is “an overnight social event…where the participants…watch movies, socialize, and have food.”

Roberts was one of three chaperones for the event.

In the suit, Bland and Aldridge allege at an unspecified time early on Oct. 31, 2010, Roberts “unlawfully…assaulted [them]…by touching their genital areas and body in an offensive, improper, unwelcome and unlawful way.” Also, they maintain they were not Roberts’ only victims as he “made contact with multiple participants of the ‘lock-in.”

Additionally, Bland and Aldridge say this is not the first time Roberts has taken advantage of young people in his care. They allege he “engaged in this or similar behavior on prior occasions with other juveniles and other church members.”

No details are provided in the suit as to how Bland and Aldridge became aware of that, and if they or other alleged victims reported Roberts to church leaders, including Rev. Tom McDowell, SAUMC’s pastor, and law enforcement officials.

Nevertheless, Bland and Aldridge allege SAUMC “approved and allowed” Roberts to be a chaperone for the “lock-in” without exercising reasonable care in either selecting or supervising him.

Also, they maintain the West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church, SAUMC’s governing body, is also culpable for Roberts’ actions as it “provide[s] oversight and assistance to churches and districts” within the conference “to educate and train churches regarding selection, supervision, and retention of volunteers or chaperones for church functions involving church members and guests, including children.”

As a result of Roberts’ actions, Bland and Aldridge have suffered, among other things, “emotional distress, lost wages and benefits, past and future, mental distress in the form of embarrassment, depression, degradation, humiliation, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life [and] loss of sleep.” They seek unspecified damages, attorneys fees and court costs.

They are represented by former Wood County Prosecutor Ginny A. Conley and Angela Brunicardi-Doss.

Since the suit was filed, Roberts, SAUMC and WVCUMC have denied the allegations in their respective answers.

Though his attorney, William O. Merriman, Roberts was first to file his on Dec. 3. Along with denying the allegations, he asserted defenses of, among other things, the statute of limitations expired in filing the suit, and that Bland and Aldridge “are not the proper parties.”

Along with an amended complaint in which he is dismissed from it, Roberts asked he be awarded court costs and attorneys fees.

Three days later, SAUMC filed its answer, asking the suit to be dismissed on the grounds it was not only improperly served with the summons and complaint, but also it is an unconstitutional “judicial interference” with its “internal practices and procedures.”

However, without admitting the allegations, SAUMC incorporated them into a cross claim against Roberts. It is represented by Lora Snodgrass and Steven Bratke with McNeer, Highland, McMunn and Varner.

In its answer filed Dec. 19, WVCUMC said it owed Bland and Aldridge no duty to protect them from Roberts’ “acts, omissions or conduct” as there is neither an agency nor a fiduciary relationship between it and SAUMC. It is represented by Jennifer Keadle Mason with the Pittsburgh firm of Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva and Myers.

Along with a hearing on Roberts’ and SAUMC’s motions to dismiss, a scheduling conference in the case is set for May 22.

The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey B. Reed.

Wood Circuit Court, case number 12-C-490

Feb. 15

Brown Asphalt Paving Company, Inc. vs. LCM Company, LLC, ARC 3 FEPBGWV001, LLC and Greenleaf Landscapes, Inc.
PA- James R. Leach and Steven R. Hardman; J– Reed
*The plaintiff is suing the defendants to perfect a mechanic’s lien it filed on Oct. 24 after the defendants allegedly failed to pay for services it provided in March 2011 at the Wood County Airport Industrial Park. It seeks judgment for the outstanding balance of $140,207.41 plus court costs, interest and attorneys fees.
Case number: 13-C-61

Jimmie Harper Construction, Inc. vs. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust and Tyree Service Corp.
PA– Andrew C. Woofter III; J– Waters
* The plaintiff, a Vienna business, is suing the defendants to perfect a mechanic’s lien it filed on Sept. 21 after the defendants allegedly failed to pay for demolition of a motor fuel dispensing station and its subsequent remediation on June 7. Along with judgment for the outstanding balance of $38,996.71 plus interest, court costs and attorneys fees, it seeks appointment of a special commissioner to discharge any other liens against the property in order to sell it to satisfy the judgment.
Case number: 13-C-62

The altercation between Brian Sawyer and Deputy Jim Asbury

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal appeals court has ruled a district judge did not err in overriding a jury’s verdict in favor of a former Wood County sheriff’s deputy in a civil suit alleging he brutalized a Parkersburg man.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Aug. 13 affirmed Judge Joseph R. Goodwin’s decision last year granting judgment as a matter of law to Brian Sawyer in his civil rights suit against Jim Asbury. A three-judge panel agreed unanimously with Goodwin that despite the jury siding with Asbury, video evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove he violated Sawyer’s constitutional rights when he punched and broke his nose.

In his suit filed in October 2010, Sawyer alleged Asbury used excessive force in arresting and detaining him on charges of domestic battery a year earlier. The crux of Sawyer’s case and the subsequent appeal rested on his allegation that after first conducting a pat-down shortly after arriving at the Wood County Detention Center and then exchanging words, Asbury pulled him by his “upper chest and throat area” out of a seated position, and then punched him at least once in the face.

Though a jury on April 25, 2012, ruled Sawyer did not prove his case against Asbury, Goodwin on May 18, 2012, granted a motion filed by Sawyer’s attorney John Bryan overruling the jury’s verdict and granting judgment for Sawyer. In his ruling, Goodwin said though it was undisputed Sawyer was verbally abusive to Asbury, that was not a license for Asbury to punch him in the head.

“Mr. Sawyer walked into the holding cell uninjured,” Goodwin said, “and he left with a fractured nose, and battered face. While Mr. Sawyer’s verbal threats were disgusting, they were still only words, and a pretrial detainee’s words do not justify an officer’s use of such force.”

“I find that no reasonable jury was at liberty to disregard the video evidence showing Deputy Asbury chocking and punching Mr. Sawyer for no purpose other than inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering,” Goodwin added.

“I find that Deputy Asbury thereby violated Mr. Sawyer’s right under the Due Process Clause to be free of excessive force while in pretrial detention.”

In a 37-page opinion, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander said the video of Asbury punching Sawyer is key to the case. It alone was enough for Sawyer to prove Asbury’s actions were excessive.

“In sum,” Hollander wrote, “under the facts of this case, Asbury’s deployment of a blow to the head of Sawyer, a detainee, in response to mere insulting words, and noncompliance with the deputy’s orders, was excessive. Such conduct did not constitute a good faith effort to restore discipline.

“The district court understood the import of video evidence, which indisputably shows that Deputy Asbury used force that was excessive under the circumstances. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting Sawyer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.”

Throughout the case, Asbury was represented by Wendy E. Greve and Katie L. Hicklin with the Charleston law firm of Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown and Poe. Currently, he is a deputy sheriff in Ritchie County.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, case number 10-cv-1256

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, case number 12-2123

PARKERSBURG – A Wood County woman claims the insurance company that should have provided her with long-term disability benefits did not do so.

Kimberly Ledsome filed a lawsuit May 22 in Wood Circuit Court against Companion Life Insurance Company through attorney Todd Wiseman of Vienna.

She says she discovered on Aug. 11 that she would be unable to return to work at Community Bank of Parkersburg because of a life-threatening health condition.

She adds that she contacted Companion Life and complied with its terms while reporting her need for long-term disability but was denied on Dec. 2 and Mar. 9.

“Despite full compliance with the terms of Community Bank of Parkersburg’s plan, Companion Life Insurance Company and John Doe (plan administrator) wrongfully left Kimberly Ledsome without promised long-term disability benefits.”

She charges the defendants, which include the unknown plan administrator, with breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Ledsome seeks an order compelling Companion Life to honor a long-term disability benefits plan.

Wood Circuit Court case number 06-C-259

Deitzler

CHARLESTON – When Wood Circuit Judge George Hill put his signature on a $107.6 million settlement between a class of Parkersburg-area plaintiffs and DuPont last year, attorney Harry Deitzler knew he had a gold mine on his hands.

Just not the kind most figured.

Rather than become an example of the jackpot justice for which some feel West Virginia has earned a reputation, Deitzler and his co-counsel decided the money would be better spent on the advancement of science instead of attorneys’ bank accounts.

He calls the health study that has been created thanks to the settlement “a gold mine of data.”

“Typically what happens with a settlement like that is the people split up the money and go home,” said Deitzler, of Charleston’s Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee and Deitzler. “I talked it over with the co-counsel, and we didn’t want to do that.

“We represented a class of people. We got together and decided to use that money on something that would benefit all of them.”

Born was the C8 Health Project, providing extensive physical testing by BrookMar, Inc., of approximately 70,000 individuals who may have been harmed by the releasing of a man-made chemical known as “C8″ into the water system.

Approximately $72 million from the settlement has gone to fund the project.

Recently, results were made public that show elevated levels of C8 in the blood of more than 30,000 individuals from West Virginia and Ohio. Those tested lived in the water districts Little Hocking, Lubeck, Belpre, Tuppers Plains, Mason County and Pomeroy.

Deitzler said he has known of those results for a long time, and the most important numbers will come out in January, most likely, when the C8 Health Project will be complete.

“Something of this magnitude has never been done on any population anywhere in the world,” Deitzler said.

Each of the 70,000 who were examined had their medical history’s reviewed as well, and the tests go well beyond determining C8 levels in the blood.

Whereas past similar medical projects may have relied on a questionnaire to determine a patient’s medical history and thereby been subject to human error, Deitzler says this process will provide infallible findings.

Among other things, it may help an individual who is in the beginning stages of a serious illness to be diagnosed before he or she would have been normally.

“That may not mean a lot to 69,000 of the people, but it means a lot to the one,” Deitzler said.

The results of the C8 Health Project will be viewed and applied by a panel of three epidemiologists — Tony Fletcher, David Savitz and Kyle Steemland — who were approved by the court to conduct a study on the effects C8 may have on a human. The chemical has already been linked to health problems in animals.

The science panel’s project is required by the terms of the settlement, but the C8 Health Project was not.

“The health project is a gratuitous one,” Deitzler said. “The science panel that was created would study with or without the health project. They are funded to do whatever’s necessary to complete their study. That’s an open-ended part of the settlement.”

If C8 is linked to any diseases by the science panel, DuPont will provide up to $235 million in medical monitoring and will not contest general causation between C8 and any such disease in any personal injury claims that class members pursue.

The project may also aid James Peterson, a co-worker of Deitzler’s, with a federal class action suit taking place in Iowa. Peterson is a member of the plaintiffs steering committee in the Multi-District Litigation case that stems from the alleged release of C8 from Teflon-coated pans produced by DuPont.

Other injuries, not C8-related, may also “pop up” during the study, Deitzler said, and the information will be shared around the world.

“(The C8 Health Project) is so important because the information will not be held privately, that scientists all over the world will be able to study all of the benefits and information it will have not just to class members, but to humankind in general,” Deitzler said.

“It wasn’t something that DuPont planned for us to do. “They provided us with the funds.”

PARKERSBURG – Parkersburg-area residents say DuPont has tampered with the terms of a $107.8 million settlement stemming from a lawsuit that alleged the company exposed them to the chemical C8.

One term of the settlement was the creation of a three-person science panel to examine the effects of C8 on the human body, but lawyers have asked for a court order from Wood Circuit Court putting an end to DuPont’s interference with the study.

The panel was given no limitations on what it could test, and it chose to monitor employees of DuPont’s Washington Works plant, where C8 was allegedly exposed to the water system. Initially, the plan was not met with resistance.

A DuPont attorney, however, sent the panel a letter that said, “Please stop all work related to an incidence of disease study of DuPont’s Washington Works employees.”

In response, the panel sent an e-mail that stated, “The science panel regrets DuPont’s decision to cancel our proposed worker cohort study. The population in question, DuPont employees, is a relatively highly exposed population. Understanding the potential health effects of C8 in the community will be markedly enhanced by understanding the health effects of C8 in the more highly exposed workers.”

The complaint says DuPont is preventing the science panel from proceeding as it wishes, pursuant to the terms of the settlement that was partly worked out by Charleston attorney Harry Deitzler, of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee and Deitzler.

Approximately $72 million of the settlement was used on a 70,000-person health study that’s results are to be provided to the science panel.

DuPont recently released a summary of its own C8 test of more than 6,000 employees and said it found slightly elevated levels of kidney cancer, heart disease and diabetes. However, they said the statistics were not significant enough to provide a link to C8.

The chemical has been known to cause abnormalities in animals, but its effects on humans are so far relatively unknown.

Harry Deitzler

Larry Janssen

PARKERSBURG – After three years of arguing, the two sides in a class action lawsuit brought against DuPont finally agreed on a settlement in August 2004.

Monday in Wood Circuit Court, they met again to argue the interpretation of the terms.

Charleston attorney Harry Deitzler argued on behalf of a class of Parkersburg-area residents who say DuPont’s Washington Works plant is liable for releasing a chemical known as “C8″ into six water districts during its production of Teflon-coated cookware.

Deitzler had filed a motion to enforce the settlement against DuPont, which has been hesitant to allow for health tests to be performed by a three-person science panel on its employees.

“The judge said that if the science panel wanted the information, they’d get it,” said Deitzler, of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee and Deitzler. “He didn’t tip-toe around the issue.”

Judge Arthur Gustke, a substitute senior status judge who has been pitching in at Wood Circuit Court during the nine-month absence of a full-time judge to replace the retired George Hill, decided that DuPont must comply with any requests made by the science panel, as long as the panel proves they are necessary for its study.

“Let them put it in, study it very carefully and in good faith, make sure that they’re not asking for something that they don’t really need, OK?” Gustke told Deitzler and DuPont’s attorney, Larry Janssen of Steptoe and Johnson’s Los Angeles office.

The settlement, originally worth $107.6, provided the creation of the science panel that consists of three epidemiologists. As scientists with no monetary interest in the results, they were instructed to research the effects of C8 on humans.

Approximately $70 million of the settlement went to another health study, the C8 Health Project, which tested almost 70,000 of the possibly affected individuals. The results of that study were made available to the science panel, while Deitzler argues that a superficial study on Washington Works employees performed by DuPont was not good enough for the panel.

As the panel tried to perform its own study on the employees, a DuPont attorney sent the panel a letter that said, “Please stop all work related to an incidence of disease study of DuPont’s Washington Works employees.”

In response, the panel sent an e-mail that stated, “The science panel regrets DuPont’s decision to cancel our proposed worker cohort study. The population in question, DuPont employees, is a relatively highly exposed population. Understanding the potential health effects of C8 in the community will be markedly enhanced by understanding the health effects of C8 in the more highly exposed workers.”

DuPont recently released a summary of its own C8 test of more than 6,000 employees and said it found slightly elevated levels of kidney cancer, heart disease and diabetes. However, they said the statistics were not significant enough to provide a link to C8 exposure.

During the hearing, Deitzler argued:

-That DuPont violated terms of the settlement by sending the letter directly to the science panel and not to Garden City group, a third party intermediary that acts as the settlement administrator;

-That DuPont’s own study was subject to the Healthy Worker Effect, which states that the working population at any plant is expected to be healthier than the general population because employers do not hire individuals with apparent illnesses, and has not been submitted to the science panel.

-That “what the science panel has asked for is an ability to do a different sort of analysis on the data, and they aren’t going to give us that even though the settlement agreement requires it.”

-That DuPont employees are members of the class represented in the complaint and are subject to science panel testing;

-That DuPont’s submission of its own study to the science panel would ruin the independence of the results;

-And that the panel’s quarterly reports should be filed with the court to keep it up to speed.

In response, Janssen countered:

-That DuPont workers are not members of the represented class because they are company employees;

-That a special master involved in the negotiations be put in charge of resolving settlement disputes because he or she will be more familiar with the situation.

-That DuPont’s own 73-page study was in-depth enough and lists any faults that the non-encompassing research may have;

-That DuPont has no obligation to turn over the results of the study to the science panel, though it will if asked;

-And that DuPont is planning a follow-up study of disease incidence that it will perform itself.

In addition, Janssen said Deitzler is “confusing the right to the data to the ability to do the study,” and that Jim Lamp, who was present during mediation, should decide if the settlement’s wording allows for the science panel to test DuPont employees because he is more familiar with the situation than the court.

Tuesday, the panel held a press conference in Vienna and announced plans to do a follow-up study on participants of the C8 Health Project to which $70 million of the settlement went.

Gustke has asked that the panel submit a list of information it wishes to collect from DuPont a line can be drawn “between what they really need in order to be able to arrive at the decisions that they’re going to arrive at.”

“DuPont is willing, as I understand, to… ‘give to the panel…’ all the information which the panel will say that they need for their purposes,” he added.

The science panel’s preliminary results were expected to be released in January, but full results may not be available until 2011. The chemical has been known to cause abnormalities in animals, but its effects on humans are so far relatively unknown.

PARKERSBURG – During the final moments of a lengthy hearing Monday, an attorney remarked to Arthur Gustke that the senior status judge is working a murder trial later in the week.

“I hope I’m not,” Gustke responded. “I really don’t know what my schedule is.”

Asked to hear arguments stemming from the class action suit brought against DuPont by Parkersburg-area residents over water that was alleged to be contaminated with the chemical “C8″, Gustke, who is helping to fill the role of a full-time judge in Wood Circuit Court while Gov. Joe Manchin picks a successor to the now-retired George Hill, had to immerse himself in the background of the case, though admitted he was a little behind on the facts.

He also made comments that he might not be needed much longer.

“The secretary to this (circuit) has almost a full filing cabinet full of information on this case,” he said. “And believe me, there’s no way I can go over everything and learn it, and I’m not going to be here that much longer.

“It could be the end of this month, OK? I’m not saying it will be, but it could be the end of this month. So I may not be here to hear any more of this.”

The open judgeship has been the subject of great dispute in Wood County, with the county’s Republican Executive Committee, Democratic Executive Committee, County Commission, Bar Association and Deputy Sheriff’s Association all passing resolutions urging Manchin to act quicker.

Hill officially retired in February, and senior status judges Gustke and James Holliday have been responsible for filling his shoes since. Holliday is now substituting in Putnam Circuit Court, too, while Judge O.C. Spaulding recovers from heart bypass surgery.

Some have argued that the senior status judges can not combined to take on the full workload of a permanent judge, and the county’s child abuse and neglect cases have caused delays with other cases.

Wood Circuit Judge Jeffrey Reed sent Manchin a letter in May requesting the vacancy be filled “without unnecessary delay.”

Manchin’s legal counsel, Carte Goodwin, said three weeks ago that the opening should be filled soon.

“The government takes this appointment very seriously,” Goodwin has said. “I wish it was something we could do quicker, but at the end of the day it’s better to make the right choice.”

Gustke backed off his original timeline a little later on in Monday’s hearing, but stated “I fully expect by the first of the year that that’s going to be over with. And I think that the Governor will have named someone to permanently replace Judge Hill.

“Now, that’s the best I can tell you on that, and it won’t be more than the first of the year, I don’t believe.”

Some individuals who were upset with Manchin’s actions, or perceived lack thereof, started the website www.woodcountywaits.com. It contains a timeline following Hill’s announcement to present day.

Three other judgeships are also open, in Mercer, Berkeley and Greenbrier counties.

Parkersburg attorney Walt Auvil, whose wife Michelle Rusen was one of the nine applicants, has been one of the most outspoken critics, saying, “The system is crowded to begin with, and to try and cram onto the judges’ schedule the burden of the entire workload of child abuse and neglect cases, then stand back and say there’s no effect on the system and it’s not impeding it is a crock.”

Deitzler

PARKERSBURG – The C8 science panel has asked and now hopes to receive.

On Nov. 16, the plaintiffs attorneys in a class action lawsuit against DuPont in Wood Circuit Court filed with the court a motion for entry of order regarding compliance of the parties and the science panel as to the court’s directive in which the panel asks to perform its own study on the effects of the chemical C8 on DuPont workers.

The science panel, a group of three epidemiologists, was formed as part of a $107 million settlement that stemmed from allegations that DuPont’s Washington Works plants exposed residents of six Parkersburg-area water districts to C8. The chemical has been known to cause abnormalities in animals but its effects on humans is largely unknown.

Charleston attorney Harry Deitzler filed the motion, which says the science panel wishes to do a study of the nearly 5,000 Washington Works employees. The panel was supposed to have free reign, he argues, but DuPont would not let it perform a worker study.

Instead, DuPont submitted its own study. The panel has said it would prefer a study that had no conflict of interest.

Judge Arthur Gustke, a fill-in senior status judge while Gov. Joe Manchin picks a successor to the retired George Hill, agreed in a Nov. 13 hearing to ask the science panel what it wished to study. If it didn’t infringe on DuPont’s confidential information, he would allow it.

“The science panel this study is needed because it has distinct value beyond the research we are conducting in the community residents,” the panel wrote. “It promises to make a very important contribution to assessing whether C8 may be linked to any adverse health effects.

“The workers have higher exposures than the community, and a high exposure group is particularly important in determining whether C8 is associated with any adverse health effects.”

It adds that DuPont’s study only dealt with the mortality rate of employees, not disease incidence.

“The science panel believes it should conduct this study, not DuPont,” it adds.

As the panel previously tried to perform its own study on the employees, a DuPont attorney sent the panel a letter that said, “Please stop all work related to an incidence of disease study of DuPont’s Washington Works employees.”

In response, the panel sent an e-mail that stated, “The science panel regrets DuPont’s decision to cancel our proposed worker cohort study. The population in question, DuPont employees, is a relatively highly exposed population. Understanding the potential health effects of C8 in the community will be markedly enhanced by understanding the health effects of C8 in the more highly exposed workers.”

DuPont recently released a summary of its own C8 test of more than 6,000 employees and said it found slightly elevated levels of kidney cancer, heart disease and diabetes. However, they said the statistics were not significant enough to provide a link to C8 exposure.

During the hearing on the matter, Deitzler argued:

* That DuPont violated terms of the settlement by sending the letter directly to the science panel and not to Garden City group, a third party intermediary that acts as the settlement administrator;

* That DuPont’s own study was subject to the Healthy Worker Effect, which states that the working population at any plant is expected to be healthier than the general population because employers do not hire individuals with apparent illnesses, and has not been submitted to the science panel.

* That “what the science panel has asked for is an ability to do a different sort of analysis on the data, and they aren’t going to give us that even though the settlement agreement requires it.”

* That DuPont employees are members of the class represented in the complaint and are subject to science panel testing;

* That DuPont’s submission of its own study to the science panel would ruin the independence of the results;

* And that the panel’s quarterly reports should be filed with the court to keep it up to speed.

In response, DuPont’s attorney Larry Janssen countered:

* That DuPont workers are not members of the represented class because they are company employees;

* That a special master involved in the negotiations be put in charge of resolving settlement disputes because he or she will be more familiar with the situation.

* That DuPont’s own 73-page study was in-depth enough and lists any faults that the non-encompassing research may have;

* That DuPont has no obligation to turn over the results of the study to the science panel, though it will if asked;

* And that DuPont is planning a follow-up study of disease incidence that it will perform itself.

The science panel insists that’s not good enough and is now waiting on Gustke’s decision.

“We recognize there are sensitive issues regarding DuPont’s obligations to its own workers and the need for the plaintiffs to have some knowledge of our work with the DuPont staff, but we believe these issues can be overcome,” the panel wrote.

J.D. Beane

CHARLESTON – Even though he’s served 16 years in the House of Delegates and was recently appointed by Gov. Joe Manchin to become the new Wood Circuit Judge, Parkersburg attorney J.D. Beane admits he’s the black sheep of his family.

While his brothers followed in their father’s path, Beane said he opted for something less visceral.

“I couldn’t stand the sight of blood,” he said. “It wasn’t in my future to become a doctor.”

It’s doubtful that Dr. John Beane laments his son’s decision, now that he joins judges Robert Waters and Jeffery Reed in serving the 4th Circuit, which also covers Wirt County.

“It’s an opportunity that doesn’t necessarily come by often,” J.D. Beane said. “Having served in the Legislature for 16 years and being away from my family and things like that, I’d been thinking about looking to do something different in the future. I didn’t think it would happen nearly this soon.”

And it’s happened in the county in which he’s spent most of his life, having moved to Wood County in time for first grade.

Father John grew up in Braxton County, then graduated from West Virginia University and did his residency in Huntington, taking his family with him. In the army, John was stationed in Knoxville, Tenn. He lived there for two years before bringing the family back to West Virginia.

Because seating charts were done alphabetically in medical school, he befriended and eventually opened a practice with two other doctors whose last names began with “B”. A fourth later joined it.

Two of his sons continued the legacy, but J.D. opted for law school at Capital University in Columbus.

A Democrat with his own private practice who eventually earned enough respect to win a spot in the Legislature, Beane served as the chairman of the House Government Organization Committee, co-chair of the Joint Committee on Government Operations and the Interstate Cooperation Committee and vice-chairman of the House Banking Committee.

He dropped it all to take his seat on the bench, which he plans to do in early January.

“It’s obviously something I’m anxious to start, although there’s that hesitation about wanting to do the right thing and do a great job. Not having done it before presents a challenge,” Beane said.

“I’ve been part of making laws for 16 years, so hopefully I’ll be able to interpret those laws. Hopefully I’ll be able to interpret some of those laws I was responsible for passing.”

Retired senior status judges Arthur Gustke and James Holliday filled in while Manchin made his decision, and Beane applauded their efforts. He also said he will lean on Reed and Waters while he learns on the job.

“I’ve spent some time with them recently, checked their schedule of what they have going on and planned to get with them during the business day and after,” Beane said.

Watching those judges perform and anticipating himself doing the same reminds Beane of why he’s giving up his practice and seat in the Legislature.

“As a lawyer, as with many lawyers probably, from time to time I pondered the thought of someday becoming a judge,” he said. “It happened sooner than I thought.

“I enjoyed serving in the Legislature and know this opportunity may not present itself again. It’s one of those things that when it became available and thought about it, and it was a ‘Here-I-am’ kind of thing.”

Walt Auvil

Gov. Joe Manchin

PARKERSBURG – It took nearly a year for J.D. Beane to be tabbed as a replacement for retired Wood Circuit Judge George Hill.

Beane’s replacement, however, needs to be picked in less than a month.

That’s the main issue facing Wood County now that Beane, who served the Parkersburg-area in the House of Delegates for 16 years, has resigned his post to become the 4th Circuit’s third judge. Manchin appointed him Dec. 15.

The county’s Democratic Executive Committee, headed by Parkersburg attorney Walt Auvil, will have to meet to choose three potential successors who will be submitted to Gov. Joe Manchin. Manchin will choose Beane’s replacement from that list.

Auvil has been an outspoken critic of the wait Wood County has endured since Hill retired at the end of February. He will have a hand in choosing the list of three as the county attempts to have a replacement ready for the Legislature’s session that begins Jan. 10.

Auvil and the other area attorneys now have their judge, but the approximately 40 members of the Democratic Executive Committee will have to sift through applicants for Beane’s spot in the Legislature over the holidays.

“Even a political junkie like me does not relish reading multiple potential candidate questionnaires over Christmas,” Auvil told both the Parkersburg News and Sentinel and The Record in an e-mail. “I would suggest that many WCDEC Committee members would agree that they might have other Holiday preferences as well. We are asking them to sacrifice those to review these questionnaires and attend the special meeting two days after Christmas.

“We are similarly placing a considerable strain on applicants to complete a lengthy questionnaire and return it to us within a few days. Had the Governor’s office been frank about its intent weeks or months ago none of these time pressures would have been imposed on us or the candidates as the entire process could have been completed by now in anticipation of the official announcement of the selection.”

Auvil also suggested that individuals who would have been interested in the job may be put off now.

“I would guess the timing may eliminate some who would otherwise have applied for this reason — some folks will not be able to leave to go to Charleston on notice that is only a few days. Family obligations and business responsibilities may make the transition time too short.

“My understanding is that we need to have a delegate in place by Jan. 7 to receive committee assignments from the new leadership. That does not give a candidate much time.”

An editorial in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel called Beane’s appointment “possibly the worst-kept secret in recent history.”

The reason that Beane’s appointment, some argue, took so long stems from a 1999 Supreme Court decision that stated a legislator could not be appointed to a position that had had a pay raise voted on by the legislator in his or her current term.

Beane had voted on a judicial pay raise in 2005, but when his term ran out earlier this month it ended the stipulations of that decision, making him eligible to take the Wood Circuit judgeship without being subjected to a challenge.

Manchin legal counsel Carte Goodwin acknowledged that the appointment took longer than usual but said there was nothing political about it.

“I think the process is one that must be very deliberate and must be very thorough,” he aid. “As you get into it, sometimes it takes longer than the Governor and the local residents would like.

“At the end of the day, you need to find a very qualified person to fill that position, and that’s what we’ve done with J.D. Beane.”

But that’s not the viewpoint of the website www.woodcountywaits.com, which detailed the problems caused by not having a judge, according to Manchin’s critics.

According to the timeline constructed on the site:

-Nine attorneys applied for the job in February, and Goodwin announced that due to the Legislative session interviews would be held in May;

-After interviews were held in July, Goodwin sent a memo to all applicants stating that the Governor’s office forgot to request law school transcripts, further delaying the final two interviews;

-The final two interviews were held Aug. 24, seven months after Hill announced his retirement. Goodwin had previously stated that Manchin’s goal was to have a replacement who could take over Hill’s docket as soon as he stepped down;

-Beane, a Democrat, is one of the applicants, even though by voting for a judicial pay raise in 2005, state law prohibits him from taking the job;

-Wood County Commission Rick Modesitt estimates extra monthly jail costs caused by lack of permanent third judge between $30,000-$56,000, causing a $200,000 budget shortfall for the county;

-Wood Circuit Judge Jeffrey Reed sent Manchin a letter in May requesting the vacancy be filled “without unnecessary delay.”;

-The county’s Republican Executive Committee, Democratic Executive Committee, County Commission, Bar Association and Deputy Sheriff’s Association all passed resolutions urging Manchin to act quicker;

-And a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ranked West Virginia last in the nation in protecting children from abuse, and that Hill’s division of the court was responsible for 2/3 of the Wood County child abuse cases.

“The judgeship that has been unfilled now for going on a year is the judgeship that primarily handled child abuse and neglect cases, and the replacement judges put in there (retired senior status judges James Holliday and Arthur Gustke) have refused to handle those cases,” Auvil said in October.

“The consequence is that the other two judges have had to take the burden of all child abuse and neglect cases.”

Beane declined to comment when asked his response to allegations that a delay was intentional.

Beane will be up for re-election in 2008. Michelle Rusen, Auvil’s wife who was also an applicant for the judge’s job, is planning to run against him.

Beane did say that he hopes the Democratic Executive Committee can find his replacement in time.

“I don’t want to see the seat that I had left vacant for any part of the session,” Beane said.

PARKERSBURG – In addition to some of his clients, a Wood County attorney seems to have difficulty in keeping court dates in his own personal legal issues.

In January, the state Supreme Court agreed to the recommendation of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board, the prosecutorial arm of the state Bar Association, that Joseph P. Albright Jr. be publicly reprimanded in the six-count statement of charges filed against him.

In its statement, the Board in June alleged Albright violated nine Rules of Professional Conduct dealing with communicating effectively with clients, and promptly replying to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry into the complaints of the three clients whose cases were combined in the statement.

Because of their relationship, Justice Joseph P. Albright Jr. was disqualified from hearing the case.

Among those clients, was Randall Hamrick of Parkersburg. According to records, Hamrick alleges that after paying him a $1,000 to assist him in a child support case in May 2004, Albright Jr. did not talk with him for the next five months, or appear to a scheduled hearing on Oct. 26, 2006 despite “having it on his calendar.”

A search of court records in Wood County shows that Albright failed to show for four civil cases and one criminal case in which he was personally named as a defendant. His failure to appear, records show, resulted in default judgment in the previous, and warrant for his arrest in the latter.

Unpaid fees

All of the cases against Albright are in Magistrate Court. Two of the four civil cases involve the city of Parkersburg attempting to collect municipal fees in which Albright was in arrears.

The city filed its first case against Albright on Sep. 20, 2002, seeking payment from Albright of $267.27. At the time the case was filed, the city alleged Albright had an unpaid police fee of $69.16 and solid waste disposal fee of $148.56.

Nearly two years later on May 10, 2004, the city filed a second civil suit against Albright. This time, records show the city was hoping to collect $683.19 from Albright for a $519.84 unpaid fire protection service charge plus $124.27 in pre-judgment interest and $29.08 in penalties through June 30, 2004.

According to court records, the city received default judgment against Albright in both cases on Nov. 19, 2002, and June 9, 2004, respectively.

Ironically, Albright Sr. previously served as Parkersburg’s city attorney. According to his biography on the state Supreme Court’s Web site, he served in that capacity until 1970 when he was first elected to the House of Delegates.

Trying to keep up

The two other civil cases against Albright Jr. involve him not living up to the terms of credit he established at two area retailers.

In the first case, Albright opened an account on Jan. 15, 2000, with Washington Mutual in Vienna for $1,420 to finance a big-screen television. According to court records, Albright agreed to make 36 monthly payments of $39.45.

After nearly 18 months of not paying, Washington Mutual brought suit against Albright for $720.94 on Sep. 14, 2001. Court records show, it received default judgment against him on Oct. 10, 2001.

About a month after, Washington Mutual was awarded judgment against Albright, records show placed $819.10 on credit with Horner and Harrison, a men’s clothing store. Three years later on July 14, 2004, when Albright “refused or failed to pay the same,” Horner and Harrison filed suit against him for $1,210.05, the amount of clothing he purchased plus $360.95 in interest.

Court records show Horner and Harrison received default judgment against Albright on Aug. 19, 2004.

Though it’s unclear what Washington Mutual has done, both the city of Parkersburg and Horner and Harrison have made attempts to collect on the judgments awarded them.

Records on file in the Wood County Clerk’s Office show liens have been filed against Albright’s residence on Jackson Avenue for what he owes to Horner and Harrison, and the city for the fire service protection fee.

Both liens carry with them 10 percent annual interest each year the judgment goes unsatisfied.

In addition to the lien, Horner and Harrison, via its attorney Steven R. Bratke, filed a writ of garnishment on Oct. 3, 2005, with the Public Defender Services to have any money Albright receives from representing indigent clients go toward satisfying the judgment.

Warrant issued, then dropped

Finally, Albright’s last recorded failure to appear in court occurred on May 3, 2006. It was then, court records show, he was scheduled to appear for a hearing in the pending charges against him for driving on a suspended license.

According to court records, a Parkersburg Police Officer stopped and questioned Albright as he was going into Magistrate Court about 11:30 p.m. on Jan. 25, 2006. After being informed his license was suspended, Albright was booked on the charges, and released on $500 personal recognizance bond.

When he failed to appear at the scheduled May 3 hearing, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Court records show Albright voluntarily surrendered himself to police, and in exchange for the failure to appear charge being dropped against him, agreed to plea guilty to the driving on suspended charge on May 4.

Part of Albright’s plea agreement included him paying a fine of $253.50 by Nov. 4. It was not immediately clear if the fine was paid in full.