JBC-Claims

All right let's call this meeting of the joint budget is claimed subcommittee to order. We've got 4 items on the agenda today we'll start with the REISSUANCE of warrants and unpaid bills and staff you give us a description of the claim on the unpaid bill. The unpaid bills Calmar associates LLC versus the Arkansas auditor of state this is an unpaid bill filed by cal more associates LLC to the claims commission in the amount of $130944.22 payable from the auditor of state the auditor of state admitted that cal more was entitled to compensation in that amount and the claims commission unanimously allow the award of the entire amount sought. Thank you Mr read you have anything that you need to add that. No Sir but I'm happy to take any questions okay any other questions from members. We have a motion to approve I guess second. A second. Motion and a second all those in favor I. Opposed no. Motion passes moving on to our negotiated settlement agreements fuel read those please. The first negotiated settlement is Darcy mailed or special administrator X. of the state of Virginia Bryant versus the Arkansas department of health melter as administrator X. up for Bryant's the state filed a claim for an unspecified amount against the Arkansas department of health allegedly arising from the provision of negligent care to A Bryant by home health aide employed by the department claimant asserted that the department's employee fail to properly secure the shower chair for Bryant or to adequately assist and secure her leading to A Bryant's fallen hip fracture claimant allege that the hip fracture began a rapid decline for Bryant and she passed away less than 8 months later claim it sought damages based on Bryant's hip fracture wrist elbow contusions pain and suffering and subsequent deterioration the department initially denied liability on December eighteenth two thousand nineteen the parties provided the claims commission assigned settlement agreement in the amount of $115000 the claims commission approve the settlement and referred the award of the General Assembly for review and approval. Any questions from the members. Sir we can you give us a little bit more detail than on that. I'm. Yes I mean this this is that a claim that arose out of a. An elderly woman who was receiving home health care and she fell in the shower and this is not one that went to a hearing for the claims commission the claims commission is always taken the position that the parties are able to resolve a dispute between them that that is the best situation the parties the department of health filed a motion to dismiss which the claims commission reviewed and denied and ask the parties to do discovery they did discovery and then started settlement negotiations and were able to reach a mutually agreeable amount. Senator. There's a history recognize you have sat on this committee for a long time now and so we we have this type of stuff usually there are human development centers so I guess the department of health you know it it taking over these in home health right and there was an accident and now we want the department has to pay $115000 because there's an accident. That's basically what happened. That one of the home health employees left the claimant in an unsafe situation which let her fall and eventual decline is the allegation in the complaint. This was when the state still had control of that right before we moved out of that. Is that correct that must be this happened in October of 2015 I'm sorry okay okay. Before the state got out of the doing the home health care so. Okay can't ask them because right. There has after you finish Shonda sorry. That you're recognized. What was the original lawsuit total I mean what are they start with claiming and then they vice soon negotiated it back well that's a that's a good question in the complaint they put unknown at this time that's not unusual we see that in personal injury claims that are typically filed I think they don't want to have a ceiling and pain and suffering is hard to quantify on the front end so they did not specify an initial initial damage estimates. I guess I'm trying to get a feel for. The women size of the lan to get it down to whatever the hundred and 15 that would be hard to quantify for me based on the information that's been provided to the claims commission the parties might be able to give more information but. Okay. Any other questions. If not correct yes for motion. I have a motion and a second second. Motion and second all those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries on to the next one please. The next claim is stern's Conradin Schmidt consulting engineers Inc verses Arkansas department of environmental quality Stearns and the Arkansas department of environmental quality entered into a services contract were by stern's was to provide design services for appropriate closure of the north Arkansas board of regional sanitation landfills and also perform construction quality assurance in addition to stern's a general contractor Kole perform capital improvements through its own contract with the department stern sought in excess of $350000 from the department for out of school contract work that a performed in relation to this project specifically leachate hauling boundary surveys and construction management services the department initially denied liability on December ninth two thousand nineteen all 3 parties involved in the project stern's cold and the department provided the claims commission with the release and settlement agreement the commission approve the settlement agreement and referred the award of $189000 to the General Assembly for review and approval. Any questions from membership. Representative in all you're recognized yes on the out of scope work is there's the documentation and that someone actually at a DQ approve that out scope worker the date. Company just do it on their own they do not do it on their and my understanding is that it was approved by 80 Q. but that AT Q. ultimately found that it had paid for it through the contract and then once they were once they got up to the total contract amount. They said that it had been a been completed and the claimant take the position that this out of scope work. Had been paid for using contract funds and that should be paid for using additional funds and and the parties did a lot of discovery in this one the claims commission heard this one there to be a motion to dismiss that was originally filed by 80 Q.. That was denied by the claims commission than 80 Q. filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of that and I order and the claims commission held a hearing on that motion for reconsideration again denied the motion for reconsideration which sent the parties back in discovery my understanding is that they did a mediation and that they alternately were able to settle it. Thank you. Any other questions as. So AT Q. saying they paid it as part of another contract in the in the engineers are saying no you never paid it. Narrow I mean my pull up. Here. AT Q. argued that the contract had been paid in full. And that the work what is. Part of what should have been performed is under the contract and the claimant said no this was other things that you asked us to do like the leachate hauling I believe 80 Q. asked the claimant to do this and it was not covered by the contract and so even though the contract was paid in full the claim and then came back and said there are more. All these other things that you asked us to do are not covered under the contract and should be paid for separately okay. Any other questions. Representative Jean you're recognized we're just north Arkansas border regional sanitation was that located that's a good question. I don't think I have and in what I have electronically I don't think I have I know it's the neighbors landfill it's in north little rock I believe. It's in I want to say it's on the. I can I can find if I have a file here with my decision north Arkansas board north Arkansas and I must be misstating I I know that I know that the acronym for it is neighbors and B. O. R. S. yeah this is the Arkansas office round well that certainly is a north little rock and I apologize I don't care if the name of the city. Thank you. Any other questions from membership. Senator 0 you're recognized. So again I know we don't really get the whole thing but they're saying they did over $200000 in out of scope work over the course of a year point 5. Yes as of as of the date that the motion to dismiss was was decided by the commission the contract had not been of fully completed because I know the project completion date was extended to June 19 June of last year. In and I don't know the exact date of when the contract was completed does that answer your question. So the contractors for 2.3000000 it looks like Senator. And then they're saying they did $200000 for the hall in a $350000 for the construction management that was out of scope of the contract. The details the details of the contract I would be a weight without having the documents in front of me I'm I apologize I'm not able to answer okay. Any other questions. Do I have a motion to approve this item. The voter for. Question. Don't get a motion on the floor but if that 3 people voting for proxy hasn't thank. Okay. If I may um and I apologize that have not been able to answer all of the questions I think that if the parties were here they would be able to provide the information that the subcommittee is looking for I don't know if this is if it would be possible to hold it over until the parties could answer the questions that the subcommittee has that's that's definitely possible so we'll just. The staff for the sole this item. I would say I know you know we may not have a claims meeting for months right and maybe this is the right thing to do I don't know it can. Well this is not a subcommittee of ale see so we can't say well here Nailsea never mind. Pitcher question Mister chairman I think one of the things that would help this once the amount requested because I think we get to a settlement and we hear these big numbers of the settlement but if the settlement the 50000 but they were going for 1000000 or in this case 0.5000000 and they're selling for whatever that might help us that the people that did negotiated a due diligence job because without knowing what the parties felt they were injured. Or not I think that would help a lot in getting this resolved because we're kind of set here in the dark wondering the 50000 fair is whatever we have the original number on this one and we did I believe in with this one they said and an axe. To be determined but in excess of $350000. Right. 5. Okay. It is the only. And and they settle for 189 members without objection I think probably the best option for us to do is to refer this one to legislative councils claim subcommittee because they will be meeting again probably before this subcommittee will be the meeting again so we'll just pass it on to them and let them handle this item so. Without objection thank you. All right was going to the the next one. The next cases are a outdoors LLC doing business as a spear of verses Arkansas department of parks and tourism. Are a outdoor sought 550 $8000 and 900 and 550 $8000 910 from the Arkansas department of parks and tourism our is predecessor an interest at contracted with the department to provide a platform for the patrons to make campsite reservations and buy tickets using a credit card R. A. was charge a 2.2 percent fee on credit card transactions for reservations which it alleged was covered by the payment processing costs line of the cost data sheet attached to the contract the department initially denied liability and took the position that the payment processing cost applied only to credit card fees incurred from ticketing sales and not to reservations on November twenty six two thousand nineteen the party submitted a settlement agreement and released to the claims commission in the amount of 270 9000 $450 the commission approve the settlement and referred it to the General Assembly for review and approval. Any questions from the members. Motion. I have a motion to have second. Motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Okay with that that's our final item correct so we'll refer that one item to the A. L. C. claims subcommittee and I believe that's all the bids we have members thank you for being here early this morning we are adjourned.