Blog / Legal News and Product Recalls

An Increased Budget for the Protection of Our Children

Last month, thanks to the courageous leadership of several state legislators, the West Virginia legislature passed a budget that included $200,000.00 in additional funding for the creation/operation of child advocacy centers (CACs) throughout West Virginia. For those who are unfamiliar, CACs provide support, therapy and protection for victims of child abuse in our state. Here in the Wheeling/Moundsville area, we are fortunate to have our own CAC, Harmony House, which serves children in various surrounding counties as well. The purpose of the proposed funding increase was, among other things, to provide for the creation of CACs in counties in which such centers do not currently exist, thus frequently leaving abused children with no source of assistance and treatment. When the budget proposal reached his desk, Gov. Tomblin was confronted with what was as close to an impossible decision as I can imagine. The proposed budget, including the CAC funding increase, required a dip into the WV "Rainy Day Fund" in order to achieve the constitutionally-mandated balance. Gov. Tomblin was concerned - and rightly so - that the amount to be taken from the Rainy Day Fund was too great. His only option to reduce the amount taken from the Fund was to make the difficult decision to veto some of the proposed budget allocations. Thus, several agencies suffered significant cuts to their projected budgets. Sadly, the $200,000.00 earmarked for CACs was cut. As is always the case when budgets are cut, lots of folks were unhappy. Some argued that women's and children's causes were disproportionately victimized by the cuts, and leaders/supporters of those causes wanted to know why. Jim Justice, the billionaire whose Greenbrier resort is the beneficiary of a multi-million dollar tax credit to aid tourism, was quoted as saying there is "nothing negative" about the investment, citing the multiplier effect of tourism dollars. While I too believe that tourism investment is positive for our state, I would argue that there's also "nothing negative" about preventing child abuse. There's certainly "nothing negative" about providing a 6-year-old boy a shelter where he won't be beaten every night. And there's "nothing negative" about making a grade-school girl feel safe enough to tell that she has been molested for the last five years. But there's more. One of the largest and most important, yet often overlooked, public health studies of our time, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), concluded: what happens to you when you are a child has a direct impact on your health as an adult. The ACE Study surveyed adults for the number of adverse childhood experiences they had endured (child sexual abuse, domestic violence in the home, etc.) and looked at their current health condition. What the study found is a correlating relationship: for each additional adverse experience the individual had, there was an increased likelihood for most major chronic health problems-heart disease, chronic lung disease, liver disease, cancer, and diabetes. The same data suggests a strong correlating relationship between ACEs and mental health diagnoses, substance abuse, and behavioral problems. In fact, an individual with 4 or more ACEs has a reduced life expectancy of 20 years. Studies analyzing the impact of child abuse on adult economic well-being claim maltreatment may impede earning capacities by about $5,000 per year. Another recent CDC study estimated the lifetime cost of child maltreatment at $201,012 per victim. This includes costs for childhood and adult medical care, productivity loss, child welfare, criminal justice, and special education. West Virginia Child Protective Services identified 22,830 victims of child abuse in the last 5 years. Using the CDC's estimates, this equates to a total cost of 4.5 BILLION dollars just for victims identified in the last five years, a price tag greater than this year's entire general revenue budget. And yet there is hope. In West Virginia there are evidence-based programs that prevent child abuse, such as in-home family education. And we have programs that identify abuse when it occurs and provide evidence-based treatment that helps children heal. But these are the same programs for which the Governor pulled out his red pen-Child Advocacy Centers, Domestic Violence Programs, In-Home Family Education, Family Resource Networks and the Children's Trust Fund. Think about this multiplier effect: children who grow up in homes free from abuse then become adults with less substance abuse issues, fewer major health problems, and less criminal behaviors. Our state saves on Medicaid, the corrections system, and substance abuse treatment. And we have more productive members of our workforce, providing more tax revenue to the state. That's a multiplier effect our State can believe in-true justice reinvestment-there's "nothing negative" about that. Fortunately, our lawmakers are sometimes afforded the opportunity to reconsider their budgetary decisions. In the case of the CAC funding cuts, the legislature met in special session earlier this month and overwhelmingly voted to pass a budget which restored the previously-vetoed funding. This time, when the proposed budget reached the Governor's desk, he signed it. The job of the Governor is a difficult one, particularly when it comes to budget time. No one is happy when their budget is cut, or when their cause is denied a desperately-needed funding increase. Our Governor should be commended for having the courage to reconsider his earlier veto. History has shown that Governor Tomblin does his best to act in the best interest of all of the citizens of West Virginia. Sometimes, doing so requires that he prioritize budgetary requests. Nothing should be a higher priority in West Virginia than protecting our children. In restoring CAC funding to the levels originally proposed, the Legislature and Governor Tomblin have confirmed that fact. I applaud their actions.
Posted in:

Related Posts

Hospital sign pointing to the Emergency Room and Main Entrance outside a medical building

$3.77 Million in Medical Malpractice Case Against Wheeling Doctor and PA

WHEELING, WV / PITTSBURGH, PA — An Ohio County, West Virginia jury has returned a $3.77 Million verdict in a medical malpractice case against a doctor and a physician’s assistant at WVU Medicine Wheeling Hospital. Following a four-day trial, the jury found both Dr. Barry Mitchell and Physician’s Assistant Michelle Porembka negligent in their medical care of 64 year old Julie Daley when she presented with abdominal complaints at the Wheeling Hospital emergency room in June 2022. As a result of the medical care providers’ failure to timely and properly treat her condition, Daley ultimately sustained a perforated colon along with necrosis which ultimately lead to her needing to have a permanent colostomy. The jury found that the conduct of both Mitchell and Poermbka fell below the standard of care for medical care providers in their field and that their negligence proximately caused injuries and damages to Mrs. Daley.  Daley was represented at trial by Geoff Brown and Tyler Smith of the Wheeling law firm of Bordas & Bordas. Following the verdict, Smith commented, “We are pleased that the jury recognized that this should not have happened to Julie Daley and that they compensated her for the life-long effects that she will have as a result of the negligence of the medical providers.” Mark Robinson and David Givens of Flaherty, Sensabaugh, and Bonasso represented the medical providers at trial.  Circuit Court Judge Jason Cuomo presided over the case. Brown stated “Our practice is based upon fighting for justice for people who have been injured or wronged by others.  Helping others is at the root of everything that we do and we are glad that we were able to help Julie and her family obtain a measure of justice through this case and this result.” About Bordas & Bordas Founded in 1985, Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC has earned a reputation as one of the region’s premier personal injury and plaintiff litigation law firms. With offices in Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Clairsville, Ohio, the firm represents clients in cases involving automobile and trucking accidents, medical malpractice, workplace injuries, nursing home negligence, product liability, wrongful death, insurance bad faith, and more. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis (clients pay only if there is a recovery) and offers free initial consultations. Rooted in its core values of experience, family, community, and results, Bordas & Bordas continues to stand as a trusted advocate for individuals and families across the Ohio Valley and beyond. Visit www.bordaslaw.com for more information.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a physical therapy company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the immunity provisions contained in the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Background of the Case Plaintiff Boyle required physical therapy following open-heart surgery. To minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, he arranged for OSPTA Home Care to provide in-home services. On November 8, 2020, physical therapist Meyer arrived without gloves, a face shield, or a proper mask — only wearing a thin, disposable surgical mask. Meyer also shook Boyle’s hand without gloves, did not wash her hands before treatment, and performed therapy as usual. Days later, OSPTA informed Boyle that Meyer had tested positive for COVID-19. Boyle soon developed symptoms, was hospitalized for ten days, and continued to suffer complications five months later. Boyle sued OSPTA and Meyer, alleging: Meyer was negligent in failing to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE). Meyer exposed him to unreasonable risk and performed therapy despite known exposure. OSPTA failed to properly train and supervise Meyer and implement safeguards to prevent the virus’s spread. Defendants’ Motion and PREP Act Defense In response, Defendants admitted Meyer was not wearing gloves or a face shield but stated she wore a surgical mask and used hand sanitizer earlier in the day. They argued they were immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e. Defendants asserted that they met all four requirements for immunity: Public health emergency – The COVID-19 pandemic triggered PREP Act protections. Covered persons – They qualified as both “program planners” and “qualified persons” under the Act. Covered countermeasure – Meyer’s “thin, disposable surgical mask” was a device authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Causal relationship – Meyer’s use of the mask had a causal connection to Boyle’s COVID-19 claim. The trial court denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Superior Court’s Analysis On appeal, the Superior Court found several factual disputes that prevented judgment for the Defendants. Specifically: It was unclear whether Meyer’s surgical mask qualified as a “covered countermeasure.” The pleadings did not conclusively establish that the Defendants were “covered persons.” Even if both were true, PREP Act immunity applies only to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure — not to its non-use. Citing Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court noted that the PREP Act shields defendants from claims related to administering a covered measure, but not from claims alleging failure to administer one. Because Boyle’s complaint focused on the failure to use proper PPE, inadequate screening, and lack of training, his claims fell outside the scope of federal immunity. Conclusion The Superior Court concluded that the PREP Act did not preempt Boyle’s state-law negligence claims, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The full opinion in Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), is available on the Pennsylvania Judiciary website. To learn more about legal issues surrounding immunity and negligence in Pennsylvania courts, visit our post on how the PA Superior Court reviews evidentiary challenges in medical cases.

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a nationwide recall of 12 ground cinnamon brands after testing revealed elevated levels of lead. Roughly 21,690 units were sold through retailers like Dollar Tree and Save-A-Lot before being pulled from shelves. Consumers are urged to immediately throw away any affected products and avoid purchasing them until further notice. See the official FDA recall notice. Why This Recall Matters Although no injuries have been reported yet, the FDA warns that prolonged consumption of contaminated cinnamon can cause lead accumulation in the body. Children are especially at risk, since lead exposure can impact neurological development. Cinnamon is often used in foods like cereals, baked goods, and snack mixes — staples in many households with kids. This makes the recall a major public health concern for families nationwide, including those in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FDA’s Broader Effort This recall is part of a larger FDA initiative to monitor imported spices more closely. Several cinnamon brands have been flagged in prior alerts, and surveillance is ongoing. For example: The FDA recently added Asli brand ground cinnamon to the list of affected products after new testing revealed unsafe lead levels. Additional products may be named as investigations continue. See the expanded FDA alert. What You Should Do If you purchased ground cinnamon recently: Check your spice cabinet against the recall list. Dispose of any recalled products immediately. Do not repurchase affected brands until the FDA clears them. If you suspect your child or another family member has been exposed, consult a healthcare provider for guidance. For ongoing updates, visit the FDA’s cinnamon recall page. Protecting Consumers This recall is a reminder that product safety issues extend beyond toys, appliances, and vehicles — even everyday food staples can carry risks. Families in WV, OH, and PA should stay informed about recalls and understand their rights if a defective or dangerous product causes harm. At Bordas & Bordas, our attorneys help consumers hold corporations accountable when safety takes a backseat to profit.