780 S.E.2d 664
W. Va.2015Background
- Seven jockeys at Charles Town were accused after hidden-camera footage showed irregular weigh-outs; track removed the clerk of scales and stewards fined and suspended the jockeys.
- Board of stewards fined each jockey $1,000 and suspended occupational permits for 30 days; the jockeys appealed to the Racing Commission.
- A Commission hearing examiner and the Commission found the jockeys had “connived” with the clerk of scales and committed “corrupt” practices by acquiescing to improper weigh-outs, and the Commission adopted definitions of those terms.
- The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reversed, holding the Commission’s adoption/definition of “connive” and “corrupt” constituted improper rulemaking and that the evidence was insufficient to support the Commission’s findings; the Commission appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed standards of administrative review (de novo for law; deferential for facts) and reversed the circuit court, reinstating the Commission’s suspensions and fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission’s adoption/definition of “connive” and “corrupt” constituted impermissible rulemaking | Commission: defining undefined terms in a rule is permissible and not new rulemaking | Jockeys: defining terms was rulemaking applied retroactively, violating due process/ex post facto | Court: Definitions were ordinary meanings of undefined terms, not new rulemaking; reversal of Commission on that ground was error |
| Whether substantial evidence supported finding that jockeys connived with clerk of scales | Commission: video, expert testimony, and context supported inference of acquiescence that undermined wagering confidence | Jockeys: evidence insufficient, scale accuracy contested, other jockeys not disciplined, no proof bettors lost confidence | Court: Commission’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong; circuit court abused discretion in reversing |
Key Cases Cited
- Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W. Va. 588 (W. Va. 1996) (standards for appellate review of administrative orders)
- In re Queen, 196 W. Va. 442 (W. Va. 1996) (deferential standards: substantial evidence review)
- Francis O. Day Co. v. Dir., D.E.P., 191 W. Va. 134 (W. Va. 1994) (administrative evidentiary findings not reversed unless clearly wrong)
- Miners v. Hix, 123 W. Va. 637 (W. Va. 1941) (undefined statutory terms given common, ordinary meaning)
- Coordinating Council v. Palmer, 209 W. Va. 274 (W. Va. 2001) (agency policy statements can constitute rules requiring formal rulemaking)
- PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC v. Reynolds, 229 W. Va. 123 (W. Va. 2011) (related proceedings)
- PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC v. Racing Comm’n, 234 W. Va. 352 (W. Va. 2014) (related proceedings)