Prestera Center for Mental Health v. Morgan N. Lutz and Scott A. Adkins, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia

1
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
PRESTERA CENTER FOR MENTAL
HEALTH,
Employer Below, Petitioner
v.) No. 25-ICA-87 (WorkForce W. Va. Bd. of Rev. Case No. R-2024-2849)
MORGAN N. LUTZ,
Claimant Below, Respondent
and
SCOTT A. ADKINS, in his official
capacity as Acting Commissioner
of WorkForce West Virginia,
Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Prestera Center for Mental Health (“Prestera”) appeals the February 6,
2025, decision of the WorkForce West Virginia Board of Review (“Board”), which
affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and found Morgan N. Lutz
was discharged for an act of simple misconduct. Respondent Scott A. Adkins, in his official
capacity as Acting Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia (“WorkForce”), filed a
response, and Prestera filed a reply.1 Ms. Lutz did not participate in this appeal.
This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
the reasons set forth below, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s decision is
appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Ms. Lutz was employed by Prestera, a behavioral health care provider, as a
behavioral support professional from January 13, 2020, to October 30, 2024, when she was
terminated for unprofessional behavior towards her supervisor. Ms. Lutz then filed a claim
for unemployment compensation benefits. On November 20, 2024, a WorkForce claims
deputy found Ms. Lutz committed simple misconduct because she failed to comply with
company policy. Prestera appealed the deputy’s decision to an ALJ. On December 16,
1 Prestera is represented by Scott K. Sheets, Esq. WorkForce is represented by
Kimberly A. Levy, Esq.
FILED
September 30, 2025
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

2
2024, the ALJ held a telephonic hearing where Cynthia Dorsey, Prestera’s human resources
manager, Amanda Adkins, Prestera’s director of the intellectual and developmental
disability department and Ms. Lutz’s former supervisor, and Craig Zappin, the chief
operating officer for Prestera, appeared and testified. Ms. Lutz did not appear.
Mr. Zappin testified that Ms. Lutz received a prior written warning on December
22, 2023, which stated Prestera received a complaint from an outside agency that Ms. Lutz
was witnessed yelling and acting unprofessionally to a guardian and that she was rude and
unprofessional with individuals from the outside agency during a work meeting. The
warning further stated that a consumer complained that Ms. Lutz was also “snippy” and
ignored his calls. It appears these events occurred on the same day. This prior written
warning was admitted into evidence and stated Ms. Lutz was advised that additional
“instances” may result in disciplinary action or termination. The warning also noted that a
conversation with Ms. Lutz would occur regarding “professionalism with outside agencies
as well as with guardians and consumers in general.”
Ms. Adkins testified about the events leading to Ms. Lutz’s termination. Ms. Adkins
stated she approached Ms. Lutz around 7:45 a.m. on October 25, 2024, to discuss
workloads in the office because Ms. Lutz had stated she felt overwhelmed. During the
discussion, Ms. Lutz was very aggressive, yelled at Ms. Adkins, and “got in her face.” Ms.
Lutz was given an opportunity to calm down, but she continued to escalate the
confrontation, used foul language, and threw bags of Halloween candy. Ms. Adkins
advised Ms. Lutz to leave for the day because she was so disrespectful, and Ms. Lutz
stormed out of the building and slammed the doors. As a result of this incident, Ms. Lutz
was terminated on October 30, 2025, in person and via a letter.
On December 23, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision that affirmed the deputy’s
decision and found Ms. Lutz had committed simple misconduct because she spoke
unprofessionally to her supervisor and demonstrated a disregard for the employer’s
interests and/or a violation of the employer’s rules regarding standards of behavior. The
ALJ held that Prestera failed to present evidence to show that Ms. Lutz committed gross
misconduct. The ALJ acknowledged the prior written warning issued to Ms. Lutz in
December of 2023 but found that this incident was not the same type of act as the October
25, 2024, incident. According to the ALJ’s decision, the December 2023 warning only
notified Ms. Lutz that unprofessional behavior towards outside individuals or outside
agencies could result in termination. In contrast, on October 25, 2024, Ms. Lutz acted
unprofessionally with a supervisor. The ALJ also noted that the neither the December 27,
2023, warning nor the October 30, 2024, termination letter mentioned a workplace policy.
As a result, the ALJ held that this prior written warning did not meet the requirements of
West Virginia Code § 21A-6-3(2) (2025). Prestera then timely appealed the ALJ’s decision
to the Board. On February 6, 2025, the Board adopted the findings of the ALJ and affirmed
the decision that Ms. Lutz committed simple misconduct. It is from this order that Prestera
now appeals.

3
In this appeal, our standard of review is as follows:
The findings of fact of the Board of Review of [WorkForce West Virginia]
are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the
findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one purely of law, no
deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the court is de novo.
Syl. Pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W. Va. 561, 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994).
On appeal, Prestera asserts one assignment of error and argues the Board was clearly
wrong when it found Ms. Lutz was discharged for simple misconduct because she was
issued a prior written warning that stated further unprofessional behavior would warrant
her termination. We disagree. In Syl. Pt. 4, Dailey v. Bd. of Rev., W. Va. Bureau of Emp.
Programs, 214 W. Va. 419, 589 S.E.2d 797 (2003), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia (“SCAWV”) defined gross misconduct as follows:
For purposes of determining the level of disqualification for unemployment
compensation benefits under West Virginia Code § 21A–6–3, an act of
misconduct shall be considered gross misconduct where the underlying
misconduct consists of (1) willful destruction of the employer’s property; (2)
assault upon the employer or another employee in certain circumstances; (3)
certain instances of use of alcohol or controlled substances as delineated in
West Virginia Code § 21A–6–3; (4) arson, theft, larceny, fraud, or
embezzlement in connection with employment; or (5) any other gross
misconduct which shall include but not be limited to instances where the
employee has received prior written notice that his continued acts of
misconduct may result in termination of employment.
The SCAWV has further stated that “[u]nemployment compensation statutes, being
remedial in nature, should be liberally construed to achieve the benign purposes intended
to the full extent thereof” and “should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant[.]”
Dailey, 214 W. Va. at 422, 589 S.E.2d at 800 (citations omitted).
In this case, Prestera issued a written warning to Ms. Lutz in December of 2023 that
detailed how she had acted unprofessionally with a guardian, consumer, and outside agency
and stated that any further instances “may result in further disciplinary action up to and
including termination.” However, this December 2023 incident resulting in the written
warning involved Ms. Lutz speaking unprofessionally to a guardian, consumer, and outside
agency in violation of workplace policy, while the October 2024 incident leading to her
termination involved her speaking unprofessionally to her supervisor. The Board found
that the December 2023 written warning was specific to the conduct at issue involving a
guardian, consumer, and outside agency, and, as a result, did not address the same type of
conduct. Thus, it does not constitute a prior written warning under West Virginia Code §

4
21A-6-3(2) because Ms. Lutz was not warned that speaking unprofessionally to her
supervisor would lead to her termination. See Courtney v. Rutledge, 177 W. Va. 232, 235,
351 S.E.2d 419, 422 (1986) (“There is nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant
was given ‘prior written warning’ that a mistake during a technical project would result in
termination of his employment although he was told on numerous occasions, in writing,
that certain other behavior would do so.”). Here, the Board found that the prior written
warning to Ms. Lutz was specifically geared towards behavior outside the agency. Further,
the determination of whether the December 2023 and October 2024 incidents were similar
is a factual finding that is entitled to substantial deference. See Adkins, 192 W. Va. 561,
453 S.E.2d 395, syl. pt. 3. As a result, we cannot say that the Board was clearly erroneous
when it determined that Ms. Lutz committed simple, not gross, misconduct.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s February 6, 2025, decision.
Affirmed.
ISSUED: September 30, 2025
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge S. Ryan White