ALC - Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight
Video
Transcript
31 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
I call this meeting to order good afternoon we're going to start today's meeting with the litigation oversight reports and begin with B1 which contains
litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing will see someone from the agency please come to the table introduce
yourself and then you'll be recognized to present the reports we're going to take up each report separately members
Dan Parker
Unverified
1:53
thank you senator I'm Dan Parker I'm chief legal counsel for the Department of Labor and Licensing good afternoon everybody you're recognized to begin alrighty the very first one we're hoping to collect money on that we
have a default judgment but we don't have any leads we've reached out to the wage claimant for any help she can give us in that regard. So that's where we're at on on that first one. Do we have any
questions members? Senator Flowers you're recognized for a
question. You say you got a default judgment
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:40
yes and and you're wanting now to find what resources are yeah at this
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:45
point if we if we know of any assets to collect the judgment on that would be the next
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:53
test step in our process was
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:55
this wage overpayment or something yeah this is a that's a wage claim case so that employer owes our claimant eleven hundred and thirteen dollars and we had an agreement to pay over time but she breached that agreement so we ended
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
3:16
a default judgment. So Jacqueline Brooks Flowers and others are the defendants
that you got the judgment against? Are they
employers? They're employers? Yes they are is it a
Dan Parker
Unverified
3:35
company or yes miss Brooks flowers
is the sole proprietor of DHP transportation the transportation company yes what where is the company
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
3:47
located I don't have that in front of me
Dan Parker
Unverified
3:52
but I can get that for you but they're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
3:56
still operating a business? Yes. So have you tried to attach any of
the assets of the company? What is this? A company or is
Dan Parker
Unverified
4:10
it? I think they arrange transportation services for other people so they're kind of the middleman contractor. There are no assets that we're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:20
aware of. How long have you had the
Dan Parker
Unverified
4:26
default judgment? It was entered on July 29th
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:30
of 2026. And you sent some interrogatories
to these people to find out what they have? Yeah,
Dan Parker
Unverified
4:36
well, as you know, the default judgment requires them to file a schedule of their assets within 45 days, so that's our first step. Have you
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
4:45
all requested that? I mean, have they responded with? They have
Dan Parker
Unverified
4:50
not responded with anything so that's always one available option for us is to ask the court to hold them in contempt for not filing that schedule and that's assuming we can get service okay
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
5:03
so you're having trouble finding these people then sometimes yeah there's nothing with the department of finance and administration that can lead you to their location or where they're operating Well, yeah, we'll do the
Dan Parker
Unverified
5:21
normal skip trace searches or whatever we need to do to locate the defendants But some people are more difficult than others to be fine And you said the default
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
5:31
judgment is how old we just took it in at
Dan Parker
Unverified
5:34
the end of July. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome
the next case under 1B is
a Seeing no other question you do you have a question seeing no other question we'll consider this
Dan Parker
Unverified
5:56
item reviewed item b1b thank you senator i'm sorry to interrupt the next case is a wage and hour case and that party has retained counsel we have an agreement between the attorneys in principle
to pay all the back wages and the negotiations are still in place on how much of the fine we
will the defendant essentially can pay all right any questions members seeing none without objection we'll consider that one reviewed item b1c uh 1c i'm happy to report that's
Dan Parker
Unverified
6:39
a wage claim in which we collected the wages in full
so we will distribute those wages to the claimant and dismiss that case
any questions members seeing none without objection will consider b1c
Dan Parker
Unverified
7:00
reviewed b1d uh let's see and uh same result there we were able to collect those wages in full and that case will
likewise be dismissed. Any questions, members? Seeing none. Without objection, we'll consider that one reviewed as well.
Dan Parker
Unverified
7:15
B1E. This is another one that looks like it may be a little more difficult to collect. We have a default judgment, and we have it of record in Crawford County where the defendant resides, but
we're still looking at avenues for collecting that judgment. Any questions? Seeing none we'll consider that one without objection
Dan Parker
Unverified
7:42
reviewed item B 1 F B 1 F we took
a judgment in that one I reached a basically a payout agreement with the defendant
the first payment was made the second one was not I now have a promise that that the third and fourth ones we're supposed to be put in the mail on Friday we'll see if that happens and then there's just one more two hundred dollar payment that would be due after that
any questions seeing none without objection will consider b1f
reviewed item b1g b1g after
Dan Parker
Unverified
8:21
the lawsuit was filed I reached a settlement agreement with the defendants and the first payment was due on September the 10th I will have to see if that's come in on time but I'm optimistic that we're going to be able to collect that in full based on my conversations with the defendant all right any
questions seeing none without objection B1g is reviewed
Dan Parker
Unverified
8:53
b1h b1h is the final case that we have for review we have taken a default judgment in this case this is an out-of-state corporation which makes things a little trickier to try and collect on but we will do we do have the judgment now and we'll see what we can do as far as collection efforts go
all All right. Any questions? Seeing none, without objection, B1H is reviewed, and I think that's in for you, isn't it?
It is. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate
you. Thank you. Get anyone from the Public Service Commission for item B2A? If you will, state
your name for the record, and you are recognized to present. Danny Hofer
Speaker 34
9:55
chief of staff for the Arkansas Public Service Commission
Speaker 36
9:58
Doyle Webb chairman of the Public Service Commission glad to be with
Speaker 37
10:06
y'all good to have you thank you so much good afternoon in 60
Speaker 34
10:12
CV-26-7792 Sydney Sasser, a reporter for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, filed a complaint against the Arkansas Public Service Commission to compel production of certain documents for which the APSC claimed an exemption to FOIA under Arkansas Code Annotated 23-2-316-B2. On
July 28, 2026, the circuit court judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Since then, the 30-day period for appeal has
Speaker 39
10:38
run, so the case is officially closed and poses no liability to the state
all right members are there any questions representative lateman you're recognized for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
10:53
question thank you mr chairman just curious how much time did you have to spend on this
Speaker 37
11:00
um on this particular request uh do you mean
just in responding to the request yeah just in
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
11:06
getting the response and what you had
Speaker 34
11:09
to do to respond we provided this response within
the statutory three days okay thank you seeing no other questions without objection
we'll consider this report reviewed thank you thank you and thank you takes us to item
b3 which is University of Arkansas systems if you would state your name for the record and
And then you are recognized to present items B3A. We'll take them one at a
Amber Schubert
Unverified
11:42
time. And B3B. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Amber Schubert. I'm an Associate General Counsel with
Chair
Unverified
11:48
the University of Arkansas System Office. B3A is the case of nausea Baptist versus the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. In that case, the plaintiff, Dr. Baptist, is employed on the faculty at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. he filed suit alleging race discrimination a hostile work environment and retaliation
as well as due process violations the board and the other defendants have filed an answer denying his allegations we have also in this case filed counterclaims against dr. baptist alleging conversion of public funds fraud and breach of a fiduciary duty of the public trust the
Amber Schubert
Unverified
12:28
case is currently in the discovery phase and i am happy to answer any questions all right members any
questions seeing none without objection that item will be reviewed item b3b thank you senator
Amber Schubert
Unverified
12:45
b3b is tamra pace glover versus the board of trustees of
Chair
Unverified
12:48
the university of arkansas dr pace glover is a current faculty member at the university of arkansas at pine bluff She alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and demoted from her administrative appointment as department chair based on discrimination and retaliation for her use of the FMLA and the ADA. We have denied those claims and
Amber Schubert
Unverified
13:11
moved for judgment on the pleadings, which is currently pending.
And I am happy to answer any questions about
that one. Members, any questions? Seeing none. senator flowers you're recognized for a question so has
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
13:27
she responded to the summary judgment motion it's actually a motion
Chair
Unverified
13:31
for judgment on the pleading so we're pre-discovery she has she has responded and we're just waiting for the judge to rule and how much
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
13:39
time does the judge have to rule in
Chair
Unverified
13:41
federal court they have as long as they want it usually takes a well over six months to
Speaker 52
13:48
get a ruling when did the university file
Chair
Unverified
13:51
the motion um my motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed maybe four months ago three or four months ago and she timely filed her response and i anticipate it'll be after the first of the year before we get a ruling
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:05
on that so all other proceedings are on hold until you get a ruling
Chair
Unverified
14:10
from not not exactly we do have a scheduling order um and i have not moved to stay the scheduling order so we will probably
Speaker 54
14:17
engage in discovery the discovery period is over in march so we have until march to do discovery okay thank
you thank you senator seeing no other questions well representative shepherd you are recognized for a
question all right seeing no other questions without objection we will review item b3b and And I think that's it for you. That moves us on to item C, reissuance of warrants, unpaid bills.
Ms. Irby, if you would, state your name for the record, and then you are recognized to
begin item C1. My
Speaker 60
15:14
director of the Claims Commission. I'm Micah
Tucker. I'm the attorney specialist with the Claims Commission. All right. Sorry
Chair
Unverified
15:24
about that. Ms. Johnson, item C1. Item C1 is claim number 260406, Avenue Government Systems, LLC,
versus Administrative Office of the Courts. The claimant filed a claim for an unpaid bill in the amount of $105,000. Respondent responded that it was in agreement with the claim, including the amount of damages sought. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill Mr. B. Do you have any statements? No, but I'm happy to take any questions.
All right members any questions Seeing no quit Senator flowers you're recognized for a question
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:03
so Can you give me a little bit more detail about the circumstances of this? Administrative office of the court is involved how? my
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
16:13
understanding is that this claim arose out of a billing a billing systems issue where Avenue did not submit
Speaker 71
16:19
its invoice for work until September of 25 but was already outside of the current fiscal year and so it had to go to the Claims Commission for payment so
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:32
were they under contract with AOC it says in
Speaker 71
16:38
the complaint that Avenue entered into a product support and enhancement agreement with the administrative office of the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:46
courts yes ma'am so you expect that that would be paid is that
Speaker 74
16:53
what you're asking the bill has to be paid through the Claims Commission now and through an
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:58
appropriations bill due to the amount and so when we convene the next General Assembly you'll be asking for an appropriation
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
17:07
for that amount my understanding is that if the subcommittee
approves it and if it is approved
Speaker 71
17:12
by the next level of review that it will be then put on to an appropriations bill for both
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
17:20
houses to vote on when the session convenes and AOC acknowledges that the
Speaker 77
17:24
amount is due yes ma'am this was not a contested claim okay thank you
thank you senator I need
a motion to affirm I have a motion and second you need discussion on the motion all in
favor any opposed motion carries item C to miss Johnson item
Chair
Unverified
17:51
C to is claim number two six zero seven six four stein ancillary services versus department of veterans affairs claimant filed a claim for an unpaid bill in the amount of fifteen thousand one hundred and eighty five dollars and twenty cents respondent filed an answer recommending payment the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill
sir do you have any questions or statements no sir but i'm happy to take questions all right members any questions on this one
i have a motion to affirm second any discussion all
Chair
Unverified
18:34
in favor any opposed motion carries item c3 item c3 is claim number 260991 half associates versus department of the military claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of twenty four thousand three hundred ninety four dollars and forty four
cents payable from the Department of the military the Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review
and placement on an appropriation bill miss Erie no but I'm happy to take questions all right any questions
members motion to affirm I have second any discussion all in favor any opposed
Chair
Unverified
19:10
motion carries I don't see for item C4 is claim number two six zero nine nine five Williams mechanical services versus Department of Parks heritage and
tourism claimant filed a claim for an unpaid bill in the amount of sixteen thousand one hundred eighty one dollars and seventy three cents respondent filed an answer recommending payment the claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on
an appropriation bill sorry no sir but I'm happy to take questions. Any questions? I have a motion to affirm. I have a second. Any discussion? All in
Chair
Unverified
19:47
favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item C5. Item C5 is claim number 261285, Methodist
Healthcare Memphis versus Department of Health. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $22,843 payable from the Department of Health. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill sorry
I don't have a statement but I'm happy to take questions any questions motion to affirm I have a second any discussion all in favor any opposed motion carries item C6 item
Chair
Unverified
20:22
C6 is claim number two six one three zero
eight Baptist Health versus Department of Health claimant filed a claim for an unpaid bill in the amount of forty thousand dollars and respondent filed an answer recommending payment the claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill
I don't have a statement but I'm happy to take question any questions I have a motion to affirm I have second any discussion all in favor and any opposed motion carries item
Chair
Unverified
20:55
C 7 item C 7 is claim number 2 6 1 3 2 2 dull tile distribution LLC versus
Department of Finance and Administration claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of forty three thousand nine hundred thirty three dollars and twelve cents payable from the Department of Finance and Administration corporate income tax the claim claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill I'm happy to take any questions I do have a question representative
painter you're recognized I'm just I appreciate the latitude not being
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
21:26
on the committee I just have a question for all these I guess maybe it's for staff what's the average date how old these are is it like a year two years
Speaker 90
21:37
six months what is that or do we even know
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
21:41
I can answer that I mean we see them I mean they can they can run range from just outside
Speaker 92
21:47
the current fiscal year or two very old this particular one the warrant was issued in
December of 23 okay thanks appreciate it all right any other questions seeing none do I have a motion to affirm I have a motion I have a second any discussion on the motion all in favor any opposed motion carries item C 8 item C 8 is claim
Chair
Unverified
22:12
number two six one five four eight Olin Corporation versus Department of Finance and Administration claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of one hundred forty nine thousand one hundred eighty three dollars and ninety five cents payable from the Department of Finance and Administration the claims Commission allowed the
Speaker 66
22:29
claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation
bill happy to take any questions any questions seeing none motion to have a motion to affirm I have second any discussion
all in favor any opposed motion carries all right that takes us
Chair
Unverified
22:48
to item D 1 item D 1 is claim number two three zero seven five six James Yates versus Arkansas Department of Transportation claimant sought compensation for property damage and medical expenses after an R dot vehicle pulled in front of him to make a u-turn and caused a collision respondent moved to hold the claim in abeyance pending receipt of information related to exhaustion of insurance remedies after climate filed an affidavit showing he had exhausted his insurance remedies the parties
agreed to a settlement in the amount of seventy three thousand three hundred fifty four dollars and fifty nine cents the claims Commission approved its settlement agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill mr. B do you have
any statements I don't but I'm happy to questions members any questions representative
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
23:42
per year you're recognized for question thank you chair so the claimant did have insurance yeah on that one and what was
his deductible well I know claimants counsel has joined
us this may be a I don't know if let me look that's right there I see it that the claimant according to the affidavit that was filed they received a fifty thousand dollar benefits in their uninsured motorist policy from Geico let me see what the deductible was representative Puryear are
you wanting to hear from counsel I think she's just those two questions what was the deductible okay is it just make
Speaker 106
24:24
this a little quicker is it fair to say that we
Speaker 71
24:27
paid more than his deductible they paid my understanding is the one once the insurance benefits were exhausted then the then the damages that were not covered by insurance then the party settled for an
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:48
amount on those okay thank you representative shepherd thank you mr. chairman i would appreciate hearing just what uh what kind of damages
were involved what kind of damages were being blackboarded on this claim and it sounds like that there was 50,000 that
was recovered from uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage and then this settlement on top of it if
maybe the claimant's counsel could address those issues. All right
if you would state your name for the record and who you
Speaker 117
25:18
represent. Good afternoon I'm counsel for the claimant james yates um to answer your question the total amount of his yes i'm sorry martha k crowder oh sorry about that um the total medical
damages were seventy three thousand three hundred fifty four dollars and fifty nine cents um mr yates had to have a cervical fusion because of that cervical fusion he was experiencing some dysphagia in the months after and so you had to have his esophagus widened so that he could swallow so he lost some weight and is still on soft foods. He did have health insurance as well which made payments. Let me grab that amount. That's okay I was just interested in what his medical bills
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
26:14
were like does this also where it was does this also settle property damage claims
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
26:21
as well we made our claim for the medical specials
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
26:25
not for property damage okay all right motion
at the proper time uh seeing no
Speaker 120
26:34
other questions that's proper time motion
to approve or affirm whatever whatever's appropriate do i have a second i have a second any discussion on the motion all in favor any opposed motion carries all
right that takes us to E1 miss Johnson item
Chair
Unverified
26:55
E1 is claim number 2612 to 8 David Williams versus Arkansas Department of Transportation claimant sought compensation for property damage after his parked vehicle was damaged by debris from an r-dot brush hogging operation r-dot did not dispute liability and filed a motion for summary judgment recommending payment in the amount of one thousand dollars the amount of claimant's insurance deductible claimant did not respond to the motion the claims
commission granted the motion and awarded claimant one thousand dollars claimant now appeals in so far as the decision requires him to file any portion of the claim through his personal insurance all right miss Herbie
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
27:38
do you have any statements I do have
Speaker 71
27:40
a note that I just wanted to point out that both our dots motion and the claims Commission decision directly follow Arkansas law in this case that Arkansas code annotated 2544 302 says the Commission I'm quoting here Commission shall hear no claim until the claimant has exhausted all remedies against insurers
including claimants insurer and so in this case mr. Williams out-of-pocket expenses would constitute his deductible our dot recommended payment of that out-of-pocket expense and the Commission granted the motion after mr. Williams did not respond to it representative all thank you mr. chair can we please identify the
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
28:21
defendant at the table if you would state your name for
the record David Williams and I
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
28:34
think my next question Miss Kirby would be the
vehicle is parked in his driveway right that is my understanding yes okay and I understand there's also a piece that says the Commission shall not reduce awards for damages to a claimant who has received benefits under the policy of an insurance the premium of which has been paid by or on behalf of the claimant and that's 25-44-303 B so my question is well one it's $2,300 two he's not moving I
I mean, it's in his driveway, and y'all, I mean, R.D. actually damaged the vehicle that's in his driveway. I just have issue with the fact that, one, this man's insurance is probably going to go up, and he's not
Speaker 71
29:30
even driving his vehicle. We see quite a few claims involving property damage where the driver, I mean, whether they're driving down the road and something flies into their windshield, or whether they're parked and something flies into a windshield and damages their vehicle where the there's no dispute that the driver was not at fault in any way but but i think it's
impossible to reconcile 302a and 303 and come to the conclusion that the claimant's insurance doesn't have to be utilized and exhausted okay but it says the commission shall not reduce awards of damages to the claimant but if a claimant has to exhaust their remedies what would be the point of filing the insurance so if i'm driving down i'm the commission will do whatever the legislature
dictates here um this is how the commission has long interpreted 302a is to require the the exhaustion of insurance if there is a change if we get different direction then we will follow whatever direction we are given I do think that there is an inconsistency between those two statutes that it would be helpful to get some clarification on I do have concerns about the fiscal impact both on the commission appropriation and perhaps on other agency appropriations if we are to
again we will do whatever needs to happen but I do think that there would need to be a look at the ramifications of a change if that's the direction that the legislature wants us
to go in which we'll do okay all right thank you representative miss Erby yes sir this is the
claims Commission take into account any type of increased premiums or loss of a claims-free discount on an insured's
policy when when taking this into consideration because I understand the the desire to have insurance pay for as much as possible and as a taxpayer well I can appreciate that as a citizen who is not at fault I think it's a little bit different being a you know driving down the road and having some rock fly through your windshield versus sitting in your driveway you're not around and our duck comes and damages your your property is so what I
Speaker 71
32:05
would say in this case is in this case this claim didn't go into discovery because the damages that the claimants submitted were the estimates for repair I believe for an invoice repair one of those
Speaker 71
32:24
requests for additional damages for the Commission to consider including an increase it's something you took into account it wasn't something that was requested by the
Speaker 74
32:35
claimant and the Commission isn't going to award damages
that aren't requested all right mr. Williams do you do
you know what that increase in premium or or any loss of accident-free discounts and things like that might be for your particular case I do not
Speaker 138
32:53
sir and as far as you know what I did and I don't remember receiving any communications back I was home at the time of the occurrence
Chair
Unverified
33:02
seeing the brush I used to run one for Washington County heard the brush hog coming my kids are playing the yard my first priority is
get them out of the way and before I could get up and get the keys to move the vehicles just in case something got thrown the damage occurred there was five R dot employees out there one in front in a vehicle one behind in a vehicle it had been easy to stop seeing three vehicles in the driveway to say can you move your vehicles I know it's a little time-consuming but ask them what to do they said file this claim so I followed the letter found the claim and I don't
I don't recall getting any feedback back saying what's going to happen or anything like that until I got a notice saying you were awarded $1,000 for your deductible, which then I was like, well, I was not at fault. It's sitting right there. It would have been easy to move if someone would have just took the time to stop and ask, and i just don't see where a citizen should have to be out anything which i know i wouldn't be if
insurance is taking care of it but two days prior to this my shop burnt which cost my insurance company about three hundred thousand dollars so far now i have this so i'm pretty sure all my insurance is fixing to up even though it's a no fault yeah uh and so that that's part of the reason why it's just a it's a
principal issue to me thank you uh representative rose
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
34:39
you're recognized for a question thank you thank you mr. chair uh mr. williams thanks for being here for today today right here in front of you um i appreciate you sharing your perspectives
i wanted to ask miss irby for those of us who may not fully comprehend kind of the process um what is the first thing that the department would have in forms of coverage like if he's being asked to fill out a form for the incident is is like our our baseline operating procedure we'll just reimburse you for your deductible or do we have additional mechanisms for coverage
Speaker 71
35:20
and incidents well um so i think that would probably be a two-part so the department of Transportation is entirely separate from the Claims Commission and so I would probably defer questions about insurance my understanding is that the Department of Transportation is considered an uninsured motorist under Arkansas law and that that's how it's set up but I would defer to their counsel to provide specifics on that but as far as the claim process goes the it sounds like in this case Mr. Williams was talking to the RDOT employees that he saw in there
like you need to file a claim and so you reach out to the claims commission and got a claim form and then we go through the process with our office if he submits the claim form if we need additional documents then we reach back out and say we need your insurance declarations we need estimates for repair or a repair invoice you know one of those two and once we have the entire claim packet we have all the documents we need we submit it to the agency in in this case, RDOT, to give them an opportunity to respond. Right. And RDOT filed an answer.
They responded and they said, there's no issue about liability. They don't dispute liability. And they immediately recommended, in
Speaker 74
36:32
accordance with 302, that he be paid his deductible. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to get in the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
36:39
middle of this, but would it be all right to have RDOT come to
the table? well before we do that here let me just put this out here for the committee for those that may be new on this committee and uh so when it comes to the claims
commission they have to follow the
letter of the law as closely as they can see fit and this may be a policy question that we have to address in the next session um in fact i'm already working on some legislation myself to try to see if I can take a stab at fixing it but for this particular case the Claims Commission has to follow their award we're not bound by that so if this committee decides to award the amount claimed we can choose to do so or we can award the thousand dollars or nothing at all it kind of depends on what we decide
to do in this committee I don't know if that
helps do you still want to hear from the from our dot it would just be a a brief synopsis of uh a policy yes miss davenport if you would state your name for the record and who you represent and then
representative rose you'll be recognized thank
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
37:50
you question good afternoon michelle davenport i'm chief legal counsel for the arkansas
department of transportation miss davenport thank you uh just so i understand correctly, Ms. Irby said that the department's treated as an uninsured party or uninsured
motorist. Is that? That's correct, under the law. Is that in all respects to any damage that an employee or a vehicle or a combination of those would be liable for? That's correct. We have no coverage for those whom we
Speaker 144
38:20
damage or injure? That's correct. We are
Speaker 153
38:23
considered an uninsured motorists for all vehicles that was set by statute that the department will not have to have any kind of proof of liability insurance when it comes to
vehicles now there is a limited amount of insurance when it comes to properties that is offered through the Department of Finance and Administration with regard to
Speaker 154
38:42
our buildings but those are not that's for state losses not for the losses of a
claimant okay all right thank you yeah for now that that covers thank you mr. chair all right senator rice
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
38:58
you're recognized thank you mr. williams your your total claim was for how much I
Speaker 138
39:04
was asked to get three claims
and I believe I'm going off top of my head here I don't have that in front of me and I apologize somewhere between twenty two hundred dollars and twenty four hundred dollars yeah I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
39:18
was thinking I'd seen 23 somewhere can you briefly tell us what you were you were out of pocket expense or it was this for damage that you left damage and just got a instrument or did you have it repaired i have not had it repaired as of yet i was
Speaker 138
39:34
going to go ahead and get it repaired once this is resolved uh and if we need to see receipts
Chair
Unverified
39:41
on that i'm happy to forward those to whoever needs to have them to show that the property Did you
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
39:47
give the Claims Commission the estimates? Yes, sir.
Speaker 163
39:51
Okay. I believe that was part of the form. Can you tell us roughly what it did to your vehicle? Yes, sir. The stick flew through there and dented the
Speaker 138
40:01
roof of the vehicle right in front of the sunroof. And from what I understand on the estimates, everyone's talking that they're going to have to take the sunroof out,
pop the dents out, repaint the whole roof to fix it appropriately. I'm not a body shop person, so I don't know. Okay, thank
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
40:20
you for that. For the Claims Commission, if we amended this claim or another claim, that is not directing you to change your interpretation of the law directly,
Speaker 74
40:36
is it? Well, that was going to be my question. If the subcommittee votes to amend
Speaker 71
40:42
the amount that the commission awarded,
I would just ask for some clarification because we get these claims, we deal with these every month, and so there's a lot of time between now and the next session, and so I would just like some clarification so that I make sure we don't have 65 appeals before your body, unless that's what y'all are working
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
41:04
on. Okay, and I'll be happy to address this to the co-chairs. We have amended claims before, and i haven't heard the claims commission saying we're going to we're going to change what we're
doing or we're going to have a bunch of play i mean anybody i guess could can file something but i haven't heard that before in the number of years i've i've been here maybe i missed
Speaker 71
41:32
it is that a question for me sir if you've got an answer for it well i would say that um the subcommittee has modified award amounts before up and down and where that is relating to an award for pain and suffering or personal injuries that's a more subjective amount in this case where it relates to how the Commission
is interpreting state law if the subcommittee determines that the Commission's interpretation is is is not correct or that we need to go in a different direction that I think that is what could impact a large number of claims that are currently pending and that I expect will continue to be filed as we get them every
Speaker 176
42:09
month well I have a motion that proper time I like you've got more questions thank
you senator yeah I think there's possibly a couple of different motions
they're coming potentially let's see representative per year you're recognized could uh senator rice i missed his motion at
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
42:31
the proper time he hasn't made one yet well um one question um is
it common for insurance companies to file suit and try to collect this difference to prevent insurance premiums from going up as far as the claims
Speaker 71
42:51
commission is concerned i can answer that we get a we get a it is we routinely get claims from insurance companies uh a subrogation claim trying to recoup the costs uh or the the damages that they've paid to a claimant but there is an arkansas statute and i believe it's 2544 305 that prohibits the
Speaker 111
43:11
commission from hearing subrogation claims okay and so those are so dismissed quickly upon
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
43:16
motion so they so the insurances don't really have a viable route to reclaim
that loss not through the claims commission okay thank you um another i'll let
senator rice make his motion i may have one as
well at the proper time all right thank you uh representative shepherd you're recognized for
Chair
Unverified
43:38
a question thank you mr chairman uh i have a few questions
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
43:42
just as to what exactly has happened here because i'm afraid there may be some confusion and I just want to make sure it's straight in my mind. So the claimant submitted a claim for $2,300 to the Claims Commission. The claims, I guess it was the department, responded offering judgment in the amount of $1,000
to which the claimant did not respond. The Claims Commission approved the $1,000 judgment referral over to us. and i understand that the thousand dollars was reached because uh that was the uh an amount equivalent to the premium or the deductible the claimant's deductible did the claimant receive payment from insurance in
this instance that i do not know i have not turned this
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
44:37
so i take it that the department's
position was that there's potential insurance coverage out there and
that the department believed it would only be liable for a thousand dollars and that's why they made the motion for summary judgment in that amount and
this is different than a lot of the other things that we've seen in this in this commission where we've adjusted because there are two statutes that are on point and i'm i can't say that i'm really too familiar with either but as i look at um 30 well
302 basically says that the commission generally should require the claimant to try to recover from insurance where it's available i'm paraphrasing there and then 303 talks about what the award would be and it and 303b is is what i'm looking at and i'm not i'm not pulling it off of west law so it may not be the most current version but it's just what i pulled up quickly here it talks about the commission shall not reduce an award for damage to a claimant who has received benefits
thank you under a policy of insurance the premium of which would have been paid by or on behalf of the claimant so if i'm understanding this correctly i'm assuming the insurance that potentially is available to the claimant and was the basis by which the department made this suggestion for a thousand dollars would have been the claimant's own insurance it would have been some type of uninsured motorist coverage uh i don't know i'm trying to think of collision coverage i don't
maybe even homeowners i'm not sure but i'm assuming that the claimant's insurance is what the department was expecting that he would have made a claim on if he had made a claim on that insurance and if they had paid then wouldn't 303 have required the commission to award the full amount based on this 303b that you're not supposed to reduce it if the premium was paid by
the claimant himself am i am i misreading that so
Speaker 71
46:51
that statute was was not raised in this in this
Speaker 92
46:55
particular um motion and it was not raised by the claimant in response and i don't believe that the commission has that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
47:04
was the other part the other part here is the claimant did not
respond when so the commission really didn't i mean they accepted what the department asked for suggested there was not really a hearing, as I understand it, where this was actually fully litigated because the claimant didn't respond to the motion that the department filed. That is correct.
And am I missing something there? It looks like to me 302 and 303 are essentially saying if there's insurance out there, claimants need to go make their claims with insurance. And the reason why we're even here in this commission goes back to the sovereign immunity of the state of arkansas and under the constitution that's why this commission's here that's why every why we're even having this discussion but it seems like 30302 is saying you got to go file with your insurance and collect where you can then you make then the commission can decide the claim
and then if if the insurance if the insurance that paid you paid the premium for then you can recover the you can essentially recover the value of that and what i would assume is that maybe the when the statute was passed that the thought is that potentially the insurance carrier would then recoup that amount back from from their insured the other portion of 303a is if somebody else's insurance pays then you don't you can't collect what you would have been paid so am i
Speaker 92
48:32
am i misreading this well all i can say is that 303 has not been litigated before the commission we have not heard argument in any
Speaker 71
48:40
particular claim on 303 that one just hasn't it has not been raised before so i can't speak to what the commission has has heard argument on there because we haven't heard any argument as to 303 because it never got to that point in this one it definitely didn't get to that point but it hasn't gotten to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
48:56
that point in any other claim and really what should have happened under the law mr mr williams should have filed a claim with his own insurance
which i understand we can have a separate discussion about whether that's right wrong or indifferent but that's what the law says then his insurance may or may not pay if if his insurance did pay then the commission would have been justified to award the full 2300 to him and then that would have come back to that would come to us and then we would
make that decision does anybody disagree that that's how the law reads well I think the only
Speaker 92
49:28
way it would have come back here is if in that case if Mr. Williams had gotten exactly what you know the amount that
he had been seeking right in that case it would only come back here upon appeal by
Speaker 153
49:43
the department and the only representative Shepard the only thing I would also add is under the law there's also a statute that prohibits double recovery and so that would have to be litigated as is this a situation where the statute that does not allow subrogation or double recovery in some insurance cases, but I agree with everything that Ms. Irby has said, that has not been litigated. It has always been the understanding of the department that if we have caused an accident,
we are going to accept responsibility for that and that we will reimburse that deductible amount based on the statutes and the way they've been interpreted. We also searched and we have not found any litigation directly on point to that with regard to the insurance. So double recovery right now is the only thing I could think that might alter the Way the department moved forward on that. Do you know what that statute is the separate
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:27
one on double recovery? I would have to find it. Okay. Thank you. That was the only one that
Speaker 153
50:32
came to mind when we were having a discussion. Okay. Thank you
Speaker 65
50:40
Thank you representative Shepard senator Sullivan Thank
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
50:45
you, mr. Chair over here. So We were more damages a claim is not damages It's not damages and the client hasn't been harmed until your insurance pays or doesn't pay. And we don't make decisions based on what may or may not happen. Is that true? Like, is my insurance going to go up? We don't know. So you can't make a payment based on what we don't know. It's only after that fact that one could make a claim.
But making a claim is different from the state reimbursing them, correct? Well,
Speaker 74
51:17
in order to be reimbursed by the state, you have to file a claim. But
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
51:22
does a claim have to have been paid before the state? I mean, the fact that one makes a claim doesn't mean insurance is going to pay, does it? It does not. Yeah, so if someone makes a claim and insurance denies it, and we're making a decision based on a claim, we're not making a decision based on damage to the
Speaker 196
51:42
client. Well, and there are times where, and I want to speak for
Speaker 71
51:48
the department, I believe that there are times where insurance may deny a claim where an agency may take the position that that denial was not a correct denial and that a claimant would have the opportunity to pursue an action against their insurance in circuit court for wrongful denial of a claim.
And so insurance is not the ultimate arbiter
Speaker 58
52:11
automatically of whether a claim has merit or not. Yeah, I understand, but
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
52:16
I'm just making a general point that one hasn't been damaged until a claim is
recognized or not. I guess they can come here and adjudicate that here or fight it out here. But generally speaking, there's no damages until the insurance does or doesn't pay.
Speaker 198
52:36
are you talking about under the under the statute under the statutes um
Speaker 71
52:42
the commission has tried to give some latitude to claimants previously where there are some claims that are the dollar amount being sought is below the deductible and a claimant may choose this is not worth filing a claim for because i would not recover anything through filing a claim if it's they have a thousand dollar deductible and at five hundred dollars in damages there's no point in filing a claim and the commission has in those cases
limited them to the amount that they would be out of pocket if they
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
53:16
had filed a claim yeah listen I'm you're getting way beyond what my understanding is I'm sorry
I appreciate it you know my understanding would of what we're doing here today is if one claims damages one should actually suffer the damage and if you haven't suffered any damage yet wait until you do and come here now there may be extenuating circumstance as you described okay go ahead and do that but until one in my mind the claimant had
ample opportunity to file a claim and take the steps and didn't respond but i'm not asking you to comment on that thank you yes sir thank you mr chair thank
you senator all right we have two more in the queue and then i'm going to senator rice for motion uh representative ladyman thank you mr chairman um well
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
54:07
this is very complicated and we don't know the answer to some of the questions that's been asked but when i look at this and i'm no attorney but
uh when you you're trying to follow you follow the law and you state that right here in the first paragraph and then there's two laws that may conflict now based on my past experience and I've done this before if you have two conflicting laws and you're an elected official you ask the attorney general their opinion which you did according to this document there's an attorney general opinion right here and it says the only amount which may be awarded by the climate commission is the deductible so I've always been told if if a law has not been tested in court
then the attorney general opinion is normally the law or the one that's referred to in additional cases. Is that true? That
Speaker 207
55:01
is how the department looks at that. So we
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
55:04
don't know what the court's going to say about this, but we have the attorney general, their opinion, which is the law until the determination of the law until it goes to court. So we don't know the answer to this. Mr. Williams has not went to his insurance company. We don't know whether they'll pay.
We don't know whether they'll pay the amount. We don't know whether they'll pay more. We have no idea. So we really need to know that answer. The other thing is uninsured motorists. Now, I know insurance companies are different. As a matter of fact, I just had a claim for an uninsured. My car got hit at ASU Stadium and $3,000 or $4,000. And they told me that that would not affect my premium because I was not at fault. so there are rules within the insurance industry that may not affect Mr. Williams it may you don't
know yet so we don't know these things does this have to be Mr. Chairman you made a statement that we need to fix the conflict in these laws can this be handled later or does this have to be
addressed right now can we hold this or well that will be up
to the will of the committee I think there's a motion on the table. There could be substitute motions, but ultimately the committee decides whether or not we hold it, we award it,
we remand it back to the Claims Commission for further analysis, we deny it. We could make motions like that
if we choose to. There is the potential for that
type of motion. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Representative Shepard,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
56:46
you get the last question before Senator Rice's motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was looking back at this 1987 opinion, and it references the subrogation, the language, which I'm assuming that that's the language that's been carried forward in the law or something similar to that.
It appears the AG's opinion, as Representative Ladyman talked about, I mean, it refers to the fact that it should only be, I guess, the amount of the premium or thereabouts. But I would point out it doesn't really address what is now in 303, and it may be that it just doesn't get to that because of the subrogation provisions and the no recovery for subrogation. But I guess I just wanted to point that out after our discussion
that that may be a point of clarification, whether by statute or by further attorney general opinion going forward in the future. But thank you. Wouldn't you agree? Does
Speaker 211
57:48
that be consistent with your review of the AG's opinion? Yes, it is. And
Speaker 153
57:52
to clarify my earlier statement, I do believe the double recovery in Arkansas is not a statutory provision. It comes in under multiple statutes, including the subrogation, as well as the made whole doctrine and several other common law matters in the insurance realm so i did want to clarify that well that at least
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
58:12
one follow-up if i could so in the ag's opinion this is not this is prior to the arkansas code but it
references a section of the arkansas law that says the arkansas state claims commission shall not hear subrogation claims miss irby
is that still the law word for word i believe so it's a general prohibition that the claims commission does not hear subrogation claims Then
we have this other statute that seems to be providing a process where insurance is paid as to what should be reduced,
but we don't have anything that really specifically dives into the interaction between those other than this AG's opinion from 87. That's correct, and
Speaker 153
58:56
that subrogation statute, just for your reference, is 2544304. Okay. Thank you very much. You're
are up for your motion thank you I have
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
59:09
a question first mr. Williams I understood you to say as far
as you knew you did not
receive anything to respond to is that correct that is correct sir okay and for the Claims Commission do you have anything to show that mr. Williams received something that he needed to respond to so under the
Speaker 71
59:32
rules of civil procedure the Department of Transportation is in any agency any party is required to put a certificate of service on any filing and in this case there was a certificate of service where the attorney signed certifying that on April 17th of this year a copy of the motion for summary judgment was mailed
to mr. Williams at the address provided
Speaker 216
59:52
I don't have anything showing it was received
Speaker 58
59:56
well I don't know if it doesn't look like it was sent by a certified mail and I believe the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:00:01
rules of civil procedure only require that it be sent I agree. I agree that that's that standard. So I appreciate that. I want to clarify that. Yes, sir. It's probably the same. I'll tell you what, for my business, mail gets lost all the time. I've had a six thousand dollar check between here and Memphis for six months and it finally got there after six months.
So I don't want y'all to have to start doing that. I'm just I'm trying for
common sense, but I want that on the record. uh my amended motion would be that we do pay the thousand dollars recommended by the claims commission and in this one case i'm recommending we we uh amend it to an extra thirteen hundred dollars for mr williams total uh
twenty three hundred dollars so an even 1300
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:00:56
additional 23 hundred additional uh and and not asking claims commission to to
change their process but in this case one case i'm i'm recommending
1300 more for mr william all right i have a
motion do i have a second i have a second on the motion any discussion on
the motion senator stone you're recognized for discussion
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:01:21
just a question for clarification with this prohibit the claimant from filing on his insurance and double collecting at this point if we paid that any attorneys in the room
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:01:50
question I mean this relates just to the motion the motion is apparently to pay $2,300 I mean as far as I mean I guess you can't I don't see how you can make it part of the motion but I don't know how we have any kind of binding effect on the claimant for him not to go out and make that claim.
I mean, it's not like at the Claims Commission where they can negotiate settlements. They have settlements and they have binding decisions that restrict that. So, I mean, I guess the only thing we could do is include it in the motion, and I'm not sure
how we would enforce it. So if I interpret that correctly, the answer is probably no. the claimant could go make
a make a claim still even if we award this okay thank you all right and members I'm only going to recognize members of the
committee for discussion I think we
only have one alternate in the room so just be aware senator
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:02:57
Sullivan yeah that would be my the senator's point if the If he files a claim and the insurance pays, then he's collecting double. Or he can come back when he actually files the claim and say he's at $1,300 more. And I'd be very happy to vote yes on that. But until that is resolved, I don't see the only recourse we have for accountability is to wait until there's actual damages.
Thank you. All right. Thanks, Senator Sullivan. Representative Laiteman, you're
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:03:29
recognized for discussion only. Well, I think this discussion is what I was thinking about earlier because there could be double payment. We're not saying that Mr. Williams is going to do that, but we don't know. And I think that we could hold this until you go to your insurance company, you get that information, and you all come back to us. And, Mr. Williams, if you're harmed in any way, if your rates go up and we know that, I would vote for that in a minute.
But we don't know right now. We just don't know. So I would make a substitute motion that we hold this until the insurance is requested and we find out what the payment is, and then we make a decision. So that would be my substitute motion. So I have a
substitute motion on the floor. Do I have a second? I have
a second any discussion on the substitute motion of representative ladyman and representative Shepard you're recognized chairman and I guess
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:04:31
this would be a question for staff if the claim is held here and the claimant does file with his insurance and receives
payment is there I'm not sure there's a process by which we can receive and in us and utilize that information directly i mean we can certainly take testimony but i'm i guess i'm wondering out loud here if what would
be better is to send it back to the commission with the with the
direction that that the claimant make that the claimant exhaust all insurance remedies per this per the statute per what arkansas law requires and ask the commission then to send it to report back to us either by way of of an amended decision
depending on what comes from that or it may not change anything I don't know but I do have a concern and staff can chime in of how do we
receive that information and then make an adjustment would it be would it be better to send it back now and ask that it be brought back to us in a timely fashion the next month or two after the claimants
had that opportunity representative i think that would be a another motion to remand it to the claims commission for further analysis and study to come back with that deep dive that you're asking about so we either need to amend that motion representative ladyman let me recognize you to amend your motion since that's the one
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:06:09
we're on i'll just accept the friendly amendment
can you do that is that okay Well, if you amend your motion to remand it to the claims commission with the instruction, Representative Shepard said to do a deep-dive analysis on it. So amended. So amended. Do I have a second on that? I have a second on that. Any discussion on the amended motion? Senator Rice.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:06:40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm fine doing whatever the committee
wants to do. you know you could you could have a copy of if we paid the thousand plus the 1300 you could have a copy sent to his insurance carrier stating that he was fully reimbursed and and relieve them uh whatever committee decides to do is fine i don't i don't think it's right to have this man have to come back again to this committee and i can tell you you're going to pay
more than 1300 for the claims commission and everybody's time to do this but
we we do it all time in government so whatever y'all
want to do is fine thank you senator seeing no other discussion we're going to take up a representative ladyman's substitute motion first so everybody understands where we're at obviously if that passes that's the end of it and miss erby you'll have instructions if it fails then we'll go to the original motion by senator rice so
uh all in favor of the
substitute motion i any opposed i believe the eyes have it motion carries uh miss erby if you would take and uh get get this expedited as quickly as possible uh to to find
out any information you can report back to this committee and just to make sure that i understand this is
Speaker 71
1:08:09
this is putting the burden on the claimant to file his claim through his insurance and to provide that information the commission and then the commission will expedite providing that information back to
this subcommittee that's my understanding of the motion yes sir all right all right that concludes item E1 and that'll take us to item F1 in my excuse from the table yes I think the only ones left are mr. B and the
claims Commission so thank you mr. Williams appreciate your time thank you all for hearing this all right miss
Johnson item f1 actually these members we have items f1 through 8 typically we'll batch these do I have a motion to batch items f1 through 8 I have a motion do I have a second I have a second any discussion on the motion all in favor any opposed motion carries all right now now that the items have been batched do
I have a motion to affirm the decision of the claims committee concerning items f1 through f8 I have a motion do I have a second I have a second any discussion all in favor any opposed motion carries item G this is a supplemental item we need a motion to suspend the rules of a motion do I have a second suspend the rules to hear this item I have a second any discussion all in favor any opposed
motion carries all right mr. B you're dismissed and department and finance administration if have somebody come to the table for item G if you would state your name who you represent your title for the record and then you are recognized present item G thank you mr. chair members of the committee Alicia Austin Smith
Speaker 232
1:10:23
I'm the chief counsel for revenue at DFA I'm Brad Young I'm an
Speaker 233
1:10:29
attorney with the office of revenue legal counsel
Speaker 234
1:10:32
and I'm Michelle Baker I'm an attorney with the office of revenue
Speaker 232
1:10:38
legal counsel you're recognized thank you and and we very much appreciate you letting us present this rule even though it was not submitted before the August 1st deadline a lot of times we don't have control over when settlements are finalized so we'd certainly when we can when you're gonna meet like to bring those to you and get those taxpayers resolved. So we are requesting approval of a proposed settlement. The parties have come to an agreement. The taxpayer is Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. The matter is currently in front of
the Crittenden County Circuit Court. The case involves the exemption from sales and use tax for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing. The matter started in 2021, and there are a lot of competing claims. There's an assessment and a refund claim denial. There's a complaint and of counterclaim two different administrative decisions all of that so this settlement would resolve everything I just mentioned and allow us to have the case dismissed on both sides both
parties have come to an agreement the taxpayer would receive a refund in the amount of 158,344 dollars and that's a lot of that's based on information DFA didn't have a lot of times that happens during litigation where once the parties get talking and discovery happens we can finally get the information that we need to prove entitlement to the exemption. So, um, most importantly, it would provide, um, certainty for both of the parties moving forward as to how to treat these exemptions. So we are asking your approval and happy to answer any
questions. So this is agreed to by both parties. Everybody's good with
Speaker 232
1:12:10
this. Yes, sir. In your packet, there is
actually a signed settlement agreement. Okay. Any other questions, members seeing none what I need a motion to approve I got a motion a second you got a second any discussion on the motion all in favor any opposed motion carries thank you very much for your time numbers
that takes us to the end of our agenda we are adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Litigation Reports
C. Reissuances of Warrants/Unpaid Bills
D. Negotiated Settlement Agreement
E. Awarded Claim – Appealed by Claimant
F. Corrections Claims – Denied and Dismissed
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council
A. Items To Be Considered Pending Suspension of the Subcommittee Rules Due to Submission After the August 1, 2026 Deadline
B. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Senator Jim Dotson Chair
Unverified
Dan Parker
Unverified
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 34
Speaker 36
Speaker 37
Speaker 39
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Amber Schubert
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 54
Speaker 58
Speaker 60
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 74
Speaker 77
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 92
Speaker 66
Speaker 106
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 117
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Speaker 120
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 138
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 144
Speaker 153
Speaker 154
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 163
Speaker 176
Speaker 111
Speaker 137
Speaker 65
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 196
Speaker 198
Speaker 207
Speaker 211
Speaker 216
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 232
Speaker 233
Speaker 234