ALC-Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight (3PM - 5PM)

The. Hi i'm sorry danny how about a chief of staff or the public service commission and i'm free and hitman chief alj the service commission thank you you are recognized to. Present your report ok thank you so much. I'll go ahead and start with AB one a which is killer vs the arkansas public service commission. So in this appeal the apsc is not actually a party to this case. We were named as a nominal party only by the court arm they wanted to make sure that we were aware the proceeding was taken place. But we are not actually a party to it the appeal arises. Out of a complaint between a. Customer and its utility. And it came before the commission the commission acted in its quasi judicial rule by adjudicating that complaint. And the decision is what time appeal but in addition to not being a party to the appeal whatever the outcome ends up being whatever the court of appeals ends up ruling on. We don't foresee any potential liability for the state are for the agency. This. Alright members are there any questions. Seeing none. The. You have a motion to review at a motion. Second. And second. In your discussion. On if I way neoposed motion carries. So if you move to the report on adam on b yes certainly umm. So for one b in the matter of the complaint against first electric cooperative corporation by integrity energy partners llc and calm main foods inc. So last week the court of appeals actually granted the apse's motion to dismiss so this appeal has been dismissed but just a as a little background it arises from a similar situation just in there the commission used its quasi judicial. Roll or or authority to adjudicate a complaint between a customer and its utility and so that's what was on appeal but the appeal has been dismissed by the court of appeals. Right senator race you recognize for a question. And it when you're saying with the license in this one too it's it's not a normal day or I don't remember. I've been here a few years now don't remember these come into that is the is it. The new body is a new way of doing the while as it changed I actually personally cannot speak to that I am I assumed this rule after the outgoing retiring chief alj and chief of staff submitted these I believe umm so I would be speculating but. III assume that it's just because that there were appeals. That are our names were are commission's name was involved in and she felt the need to over report rather than under report I understand is loud I just I don't remember seeing these in years players thank you. Right see no further questions in a motion to review this report. Promotion second in your discussion. I'll in favour in your post motion carries right. We will move on to. Item c. Yeah. Missouri. A serbia she'll come to the table introduce yourself. Good afternoon my name is catherine irvine the director of the claims commission miss deskin will you read a brief summary of each claim. And. And then after each each claim will will discuss each item and take a motion on each item. The first claim is c one which is 23 windstream holdings incorporated versus the arkansas department of information systems claimant request to reassurance of an outdated warning the amount of fifteen thousand two hundred thirty three dollars and forty seven cents payable from the arkansas department of information systems the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for reviewing placement on an appropriation bill. Isn't it does the kind of commission have anything down no sir happy to take any questions though alright. Seeing no questions for members who have a motion to approve this item. And motion and second i'll in favor and opposed motion carries. Mister. This is two four zero three eight one jonathan kennon and christopher kennen versus the arkansas department of finance and administration claim it's requested reassurance of an outdated warrant in the amount of fifteen thousand five hundred thirty four dollars and four cents payable from the arkansas department of finance and administration the warrant is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued a claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review replacement on an appropriation bill you have anything done necessarily have only taken any question right seeing no questions of emotion to approve. Motion to approve I am second. I got a second i'll in favor I post motion carries mistaken. This is claim number two zero one two zero nine morgan stanley smith barning holdings llc versus the arkansas department of finance and administration claimant requested reassurance of an outdated warrant in the amount of eighty seven thousand one dollars and sixty four cents payable from the arkansas department of financial administration the warnest allowed standing and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review placement on an appropriation though. You have anything to add on this from so happy to take questions though. Members were having questions saying none motion to approve. We got a motion to approve. Perhaps you got a second on favor eye in your post. Motion carries. Mister. Does this claim number two four zero six four three robert bosh tool corporation versus the arkansas department of financial administration sales and use tax division claimant requested reassurance of an outdated warn in the amount of twenty six thousand three hundred fifty four dollars and eighty two cents payable from the arkansas department of finance and administration the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review placement on an appropriation bill you think they had unless I have to take questions are at seeing no questions I need most to approve you get a motion. Second. Yeah. Going once going to get a second all in favor in your post. Motion carries that takes us to item d one. This is claim number two zero zero three six zero westplane's bridge and grating for the use and benefit of hayes strilling incorporated versus the arkansas department of transportation claim at west plain south damages related to deferring site conditions on a bridge project and carry county claim and alleged that it had entered into a contract with ardout related to the project and had hired haze strilling as it's foundations have contractor claim and alleged that he's had encountered harder and hard quality rock while drilling the foundation shops for the bridges then what was listed in ardot's bidding documents this made the drilling of the shops take longer damage specialise equipment and consume thousands of specialized realty following discovery in a hearing on the matter of the claims commission entered an order awarding claimant five hundred sixty two thousand eight hundred ninety three dollars and twenty eight cents the commission referred to the award to the general assembly for review approval and placement on an appropriation bill pursued to arkansas code section nineteen ten to fifteen b the commission also entered a subsequent order denying claimant's motion for pre judgment interest. The. Up. The only thing necessary happy to take questions so there is no objection by our dot to this there was no appeal by either parting appeal okay. Senator rice you recognize for a question thank you the amount of the original amount claimed it was slightly different I believe it wouldn't wouldn't a lot I will say and i'd seen something much difference yes are on the complaint it was five hundred and sixty four thousand and change and the final order here was for five hundred and sixty two thousand okay actually that night conducting it somewhere thank you. Senator johnson you're recognized so. Do this extent huawei nor don't you say ever things the. Harder and higher quality right. Can you repeat your question for me i'm sorry why wouldn't you always think you're gonna have harder and harder. And that way you're always covered. You know and. I know that in this one the commission said that it found the testimony from mrperiod hayes of hayes drilling given his extensive drilling experience that that was. That that was very persuasive to the commission but as for why are dot wouldn't always. I know that they provided their work there were core samples that they do provide that the bidding parties could review. And so I think they I think that is the information that is provided by our diet in addition to everything that's in the bed package. Thank you. Sing other questions. So I need either emotion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission. Get a motion to firm in a second. I'll in favor or any discussion on emotion. I'll in favour in your post motion carries. Alright moving on to e one. This is claim number two three one one zero five monitor mcdaniel vs the arkansas department of transportation claimant site three hundred sixty one dollars and forty six cents and damages alleging that her tire was cut and came off the rim after she hit two significant part holes on our forty or not denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim claimant did not respond the claims commission dismissed the claim without prejudice the commission found that claimant did not allege any facts regarding ardot's prior knowledge of the pot or failure to repair within a reasonable amount of time in the absence of that evidence the commission held that the existence of the pottal alone was insufficient to establish liability claiming appeals. Right seeing no questions actually. Take that back senator rice will move that up over the claim at a claim to now the commission. I get a motion in a second on that any discussion hearing none on favor in your post motion carries. Added me to. This is claim number two three zero one two six will your average and versus the arkansas department of transportation claimants are one thousand four hundred thirty seven dollars and eighty three cents and damages alleging that his will was damaged when he was driving on a fifty five or not denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim and has the response claim and alleged that the section of highway were the incident occurred was in poor condition contained unrepaired pot halls debris piece of metal and retrationer i'm an argued that his vehicle had to have hit either chunks of the debris or one of the many large hot halls the claims commission dismissed the claim without prejudice the claims commission found that claimant had not established any facts to show that his damages were caused by our spreadsheet duty the commission further found that the fact that claimant's vehicle was damaged by itself was not sufficient to demonstrate a claim against claiming appeals. Anything done next are happy to take a question right seeing no questions I have a motion to have from the ruling of the claims commission. I got a motion. And second. Any discussion i'll in favour. Any opposed. Motion carries. Item e three. The. This is claim number two three zero eight five three chris royster versus the arkansas department of transportation claim and sight and specified damages alleging that his passenger tower room was bent after he hit a pot hole on a thirty or that denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim claimant responded stating that he had insufficient funds to purchase a new rim he also stated that it was not feasible and dangerous to obtain evidence of the parcel because it was located on a highly act of highway the claims commission dismissed the claim without prejudice finding that claimant did not allege any facts regarding or not knowledge of a pot hall or failure to repair it within a reasonable amount of time in the absence of that evidence the commission held that the existence of the parcel alone was insufficient to establish liability claim in a pics. Right internet is are happy to take questions seeing no questions and motion to a from the ruling the claims commission. At a motion and get a second. In a discussion. I'm in favor in your post motion carries. Item. E e. This is claim number one nine zero four seven nine whenever a wing versus the state of arkansas climate whenever we death benefits and scholarship benefits related to the death of her husband allen wayne senior pursuant to act through forty one of two thousand fifteen which is clarified as arkansas code section twenty one five seven o five actor forty one created a presumption that firefighters who develop certain forms of cancer develop those cancers through their workers firefighters i'm an alleged that her husband was a clarified or employed by the little rock fire department who would died from cancer as a result of exposure to the by products of combustion and diesel exhaust in the performance of this duties responded and I have liability alleging that mr wayne had a history of neuro fibre tosses one which was the cause of his cancer responded relied upon the opinion of doctor anthony bucolo who's an oncologist and member of the firefighter benefit review panel. Following a hearing the claims commission entered and ordered denying the claim specifically the claims commission found that if the statute requires a cause a link between the cancer that caused the deceit instead and has exporter to consider that claimant did not establish a cause a link between the decedent's malignant per for all no she's tumor and the person agents to which he was exposed alternatively. It was found that if the statute does not require calls a link that claim that did not establish the disease and died of one of the numerated cancers in the statute claimant appeals. Right. Everything to have to that necessary happy to question seeing no questions. They have motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission. Senator rice you recognized thank you mischer before make the most added to select. So we appreciate all those who serve in these capacities. And and now take these saying flightly from what about. A reading on this I would have. Back motion up hold the claims commission enough. Right I have a motion. It have a second i've got a second. Any discussion on the motion. Hearing none i'll in favor I post. Motion carries. The. Item f. This is claim number two one zero one eight eight hard the second versus the arkansas division of correction claimant sought nine thousand five hundred dollars and damages related to adc's actions falling claimants gi medical procedure which required him to take laxatives for four days claimant alleged that he was not provided toilet paper water and has prescribed will mattress upon returning to unit following the procedure edc denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim following a hearing on the matter of the claims commission found that adc was negligent and failing to provide claimant with drinking water outside of his meal times and with twelve paper from september thirtieth two thousand eighteen to october a second two thousand nineteen as such the claims commission awarded claimant two hundred dollars claimant filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the commission should have awarded the entire amount of damages that he sight the claims commission denied the motion for reconsideration finding that the motion did not set forth any new or additional evidence not previously available i'm an appeals seeking the full amount of damages. The. Right anything to add ness are happened to their questions. Right. Seeing no questions do I have. Emotion to a from the ruling the claims commission. The. Got a motion. I have a second. Your second and a discussion on the motion so you know all in favor. In imposed. Motion carries. All right item g one. Alright members on g. We typically batch. This type of the also if there is no objection to all intertake emotion to batch items d one through eleven. And get a motion and second i'm in favor and the opposed motion carries now that the items have been batched to have motion to affirm the decision of the claims commission concerning items g one through g eleven. We got a motion. I get a second i'll in favor any post motion carries item h. All right adam h members is a claim presented by the treasure of the state. Under architects are code annotated nineteen five six or one with a claims commission has transmitted for inclusion and it's appropriate asians bill. Or someone from the treasure's office please come to the table and introduce yourself to present the claim. The. If you would introduce yourself for the records and then you're recognized is her good accommodation chairman money was eric munson and the chief depending treasure the arkansas treasures off. Nature but there sorry I am great area with the local government services department with the treasure's office. Excellent you're recognized to present. Thank you mister chairman. And we just briefly again find the code with the recent since this bureau that came out the treasure's office. Ash is the station says shell adjusts those revenues to meet the sense as numbers and there was a. Calculation here too in a moral let miss solven excuse me misgeret do this explain the process with a two. Claims that came in from conway. The twenty twenty cm when when a city wants to contest their population they can go through the account question resolution program. And they did that and the sensors came back and said that they recognize that there are two more and to add the population in the treasure's office just has to recalculate there municipal aid that the calculate would they would have received had the population being correct at the time. So this is initiated by the treasure's office due to a code. Just in compliance with the code just in compliance with the code okay. Members of the are there any questions. Saying none do a motion to approve the inclusion of this claim in the appropriations bill i've got a motion I got a second. Any discussion on the motion i'll in favor I in your post motion carries. Thank you all. Thank you mister chairman my members this includes are regular agenda but we have a supplemental agenda. Without objection will now move to that supplemental address agenda where would have one negotiated settlement agreement miss deskin. If you would please give a pre brief description of the claim yesterday this is claim number two two one zero four nine legestica male crunch versus the archaeologic police claimant crancharsat unspecified damages alleging that she was hit by an asp police car while she was in her vehicle following discovery the parties entered into a settlement agreement settling the matter for thirty thousand dollars the claims commission approved the settlement agreement and referred the award replacement on an appropriation. Members are there any questions. Seeing none. Do you have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission in this case approving it approving the go they negotiated settlement i've got a motion get a second all right all any discussion on favorite in opposed. Motion carries. The. Well if we are done we are adjourned.