Stephen R. McCullough

In Garcia v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted by a jury in Loudoun County Circuit Court of assaulting a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing justice, after being charged with offenses arising from an incident near his home. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have struck prospective juror Ms. Bergy for cause because she expressed nervousness about living near the crime scene and possible safety concerns for her family, which he claimed showed bias or an inability to remain impartial. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court properly denied the strike for cause. The court reasoned that Bergy never expressed actual bias against the defendant or a presumption of guilt, and her responses to questions from the court and attorneys confirmed she could pay full attention, decide the case solely on the evidence, and remain fair and impartial to both sides. The opinion distinguished the facts from precedents involving clear bias and noted that her initial candid concerns did not require formal rehabilitation or disqualification.

criminal lawprocedure

Debra S. Burke, a clerical employee at Catawba Hospital, was terminated after failing to transcribe a doctor's notes within three days, resulting in at least one patient not receiving timely pain medication; the hospital issued her a Group III Written Notice under Departmental Instruction 201, which addresses abuse or neglect of patients. A hearing officer reduced the discipline to a Group II offense, concluding that Burke's clerical role meant she was not covered by DI 201, but the Department of Human Resource Management reviewed the decision on the agency's request, ruled that the policy applied to her, and remanded the case. The circuit court upheld DHRM's interpretation and rejected Burke's claims that the agency violated grievance procedures or that the hearing officer's February 7, 2011 decision became final. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that courts lack authority to override DHRM's policy interpretations, that Burke failed to properly identify any legal violation in her arguments, and that DHRM's administrative review process was properly invoked and concluded the matter.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare

In Dailey v. Dailey, the Court of Appeals of Virginia addressed whether a husband's retirement from the Fairfax County Police Department, which triggered his ex-wife's receipt of 50% of his pension under their 2009 divorce agreement, constituted a material change in circumstances allowing modification of his $1,000 monthly spousal support obligation. The trial court had denied any adjustment, finding that the combined support and pension payments (totaling about $3,900 per month to the wife) were what the parties had bargained for. The appeals court reversed and remanded, holding that the agreement expressly permitted modification upon a material change in circumstances and did not address retirement's impact on support. It reasoned that the retirement was not a foreseeable event at the time of the divorce, as the husband had no plans to retire and the pension share was contingent on him receiving benefits, requiring the trial court to determine whether the change warranted altering the support amount.

family law

In Prophet v. Bullock Corp., the Virginia Court of Appeals addressed a workers’ compensation claim by Geraldine Prophet, who sought reimbursement for the prescription drug Marinol prescribed in 2007 to treat weight loss caused by her long-term use of the opioid Opana for a 1997 work-related back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Commission had ruled the claim time-barred under Code § 65.2-708(A) because it was filed more than 24 months after Prophet’s last compensation payment in 2005. The court reversed, holding that the statute’s limitations period applies only to claims for “compensation” and does not govern requests for medical benefits such as prescription drugs. It reasoned that the statutory text distinguishes medical benefits from compensation awards, that prior cases like Berglund Chevrolet had not squarely addressed the issue, and that a claim for treatment of medication side effects remains a medical benefit rather than a new compensation claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Driscoll v. Hunter, Robert Driscoll appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to reduce or suspend his $2,100 monthly spousal support obligation to his ex-wife, Pamela Hunter, following his 2002 retirement from oral surgery practice due to medical issues. The parties' 1998 pendente lite agreement and 2000 property settlement agreement, which were incorporated into their 2000 divorce decree, had established the support amount, with roughly equal division of marital assets worth about $1.4 million each. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that while Driscoll's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances, it did not impair his ability to pay support given his remaining assets, including a $1.376 million IRA, over $1.1 million in investments, and other accounts, as well as Social Security income. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of Hunter's unemployment or the uncertain buy-sell agreement proceeds, deeming any consideration of the latter harmless.

family lawproperty