1

No. 23-431 – State of West Virginia ex rel. Jose Ravelo, DDS v. West Virginia Board of 

Dentistry

BUNN, Justice, concurring:

The majority correctly determines that, under the facts of this case, the West 

Virginia Board of Dentistry (“the Board”) has not violated the applicable statutory time 

limitations for final resolution of a disciplinary action pursuant to West Virginia Code 

§ 30-1-5(c).

1

I further agree with the majority that, “through its actions to date,” State of 

West Virginia ex rel. Jose Ravelo, DDS v. West Virginia Board of Dentistry, No. 23-431, 

slip op. at 18 (W. Va. May 24, 2024), the Board has not violated Dr. Ravelo’s constitutional 

due process rights. 

However, I write separately to highlight the danger that in other 

circumstances, despite complying with the statutory time frames established in West 

Virginia Code § 30-1-5(c), the Board may extend the deadlines beyond the limits 

established by an individual’s constitutional due process rights. The risk of infringing upon 

these rights is particularly high in situations where the Board is also the complainant and 

extends its own deadlines, as it did here. Under another set of facts, the Board may grant 

1 West Virginia Code § 30-1-5 sets forth the time limitations in which any 

administrative board covered by Chapter 30 of the West Virginia Code, including the 

Board of Dentistry, has to investigate and resolve disciplinary complaints. See W. Va. Code 

§ 30-1-5. 

FILED

May 24, 2024

released at 3:00 p.m.

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

itself one too many extensions and delay the proceedings for an unreasonable period of 

time. 

As this Court has consistently warned, “even though West Virginia Code 

§ 30-1-5(c) allows for an agreed extension of time to issue the final ruling, this option must 

always be exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner. Certainly, the Legislature did 

not intend for its time restriction on the final ruling to be ignored.” State ex rel. O.H. v. 

W. Va. Bd. of Med., 238 W. Va. 139, 145, 792 S.E.2d 638, 644 (2016). Rather, “[t]he 

Legislature chose to enact explicit time restrictions for a reason, and these time 

requirements are not matters of mere convenience or form.” Id. (quotations and citation 

omitted). Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 30-1-1a, “[t]he fundamental purpose of 

licensure and registration is to protect the public . . . .” We have previously explained, 

“[t]he public will not be protected, and licensees will not be treated fairly, if a Chapter 30 

board obtains an unnecessary, or unnecessarily long, extension of time.” O.H., 238 W. Va. 

at 145, 792 S.E.2d at 644. Moreover, I emphasize that

[I]t is the responsibility of the Board to act 

diligently and promptly in reviewing, 

investigating, and conducting disciplinary 

hearings on complaints brought before it not only 

to guarantee that nurses will be held accountable 

for proven misconduct, but most importantly, to 

ensure the safety of patients and the public. Such 

expeditious action by the Board also assures 

hardworking, diligent, and caring nurses that 

they are working alongside other nurses who are 

competent and fit to hold a nursing license in this 

State. This results in protecting the public while 
3

also preserving the integrity of the nursing 

profession.

[State ex rel. ]Fillinger[ v. Rhodes], 230 W. Va. [560, ]568, 

741 S.E.2d[ 118, 126 (2013)] (Loughry, J., concurring). 

O.H., 238 W. Va. at 145, 792 S.E.2d at 644 (first alteration in original). Just as these words 

had “equal application to the Board of Medicine” in O.H., they have equal application to 

the Board in this case. Id. While I agree with the majority that the facts of this case do not 

rise to a violation of Dr. Ravelo’s constitutional due process rights, the Board must be 

reminded that it cannot grant extension after extension to a complainant, especially when 

it is itself the complainant, nor can it give unreasonably lengthy extensions. 

For these reasons, I respectfully concur with the majority’s opinion in this 

case.