ALC-Claims Review

Got pretty good representation I'm sure some of those be slipping in here for too long. And got a pretty good group in the audience there. All right we're gonna get jump right into it we got a pretty good gender today so We'll start out with Adam B. which is reassurance of warrants and unpaid bills. missed us can you please give a brief description of the client. This is an unpaid claim filed by clear energy solutions LLC in the amount of seventy seven thousand seven hundred. Four nine hundred sixty one dollars and six cents payable from the Arkansas rehabilitative services for work connected to an audit performed at the request of a R. S. A. R. S. admitted liability in full and the claims commission unanimously allowed an award of the entire amount so. Service commission everything to add to that. No Sir. We are we are we are in in favor if they fourteen approved in place on appropriations bill okay thank you Sir any questions or discussion from the members. Not seeing any do I have a motion to approve the Saddam. I have a motion second. Second all in favor. Any oppose. Motion carries. This does give you do the other one. Okay this is to zero one zero ninety two Chris Raybon and Adrian con versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration this is a claim for re issuance of an outdated warrant which was issued by the Arkansas department of finance and administration in the amount of fifteen thousand one hundred thirty six dollars on October twenty second two thousand seventeen the warrant was not timely presented for redemption and the claimant's requested that it be reissued the claims commission unanimously allowed an award of the entire amount sought. Serving you having this commission related to that no Sir not. A question from the membership. Seeing none do I have a motion to approve. I have a motion second. Wake one of the older. Got a second okay. All in favor say aye. Any oppose motion carries. All right let's go to item see awarded claims was discontinued the brief description of the client. Okay this is seventeen dash zero five seven zero C. C. Stephen a map versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimant Steven a mat sought one million dollars in damages which arose from a motorcycle accident on July twenty second two thousand fourteen allegedly due to the negligence of an Arkansas department of transportation mowing crew claimant stated that he was driving his motorcycle southbound on highway two twenty one south in a hilly area in Carroll County observing all applicable traffic laws rules and regulations as claim the claim came over the crest of the hill he discovered that the department's tractors are operating in the roadway and blocking his lane of travel in his deposition and after hearing claimant testified that his speed when he saw the mower was forty five miles per hour and that there was approximately three hundred feet between the crest of the hill in the accident site claimant stated that he did not feel that he could stop his motorcycle and three hundred feet. And that he was unable to go to either side due to the presence of barbed wire and oak trees placement of applied his brakes. And attempted to lay down the motorcycle to avoid the collision with the mower but was launched off the motorcycle and severely injured Clement allege that he suffered multiple refractors faced facial lacerations sternal fractures skull fractures subdural hematomas retinal damage and post concussion syndrome requiring extensive emergency and follow up care notably claimant testified that first. He did not see any reflector on the top or back of the mower because he only saw the side of the mower as it was in the roadway second that he did not see any flankers or trucks with flashers and third that he did not recall seeing any warning signage in addition to claimants testimony his wife and two expert witnesses testified at the hearing throughout the case claimant argue that the tractor driver a department employee was negligent in failing to exercise ordinary care in the circumstances in failing to properly notified one drivers of unknown hazard in failing to exercise traffic control procedures and in failing to keep a proper look out for other traffic the Arkansas department of transportation denied liability affirmative Sir affirmatively stated the claimant's damages were not caused by the department or its employees rather the department contended that any injuries or damages sustained by the claimant were proximately caused by claimant's contributory fault or negligence the department argued that first claim that was familiar with the roads because he had lived in Carroll County for seventeen years worked as a law enforcement officer there second the claimant was not wearing a helmet when the accident occurred third the claimant had driven through the works on on his way into town and hence was on notice that the molars working and forth the claimant never had the mower the police officer who was sent by this batch of the accident and the more crew leader testified at the hearing as well the tractor driver no longer lived in the United States so the commission reviewed his deposition testimony after the hearing the commission entered an award. Of. Three hundred nineteen thousand seven hundred and seventy five dollars and twenty five cents finding that in the absence of flankers or other safety measures the actions of the respondents employee in entering the roadway the blind spot were negligent. Commission also made the findings of fact considering the circumstances of the accident and the condition of the claimant in calculating the amount of the award the commission consider the fault of the claimant as well the commission found the claimant was not wearing a helmet and had he been wearing one the injuries might have been less severe and the claim that was familiar with the road. Dust the commission aside seventy percent full to the department and thirty percent fall to the claimant concerning damages the commission found the claimant had incurred medical bills in the amount of ninety three thousand nine hundred thirteen dollars and fifty two cents house lost wages in the amount of one hundred seventy five thousand eighty one dollars and twenty two cents and pain and suffering in the amount of one hundred eighty seven thousand eight hundred twenty seven dollars and four cents which was twice the amount of claims medical bills together these totaled four hundred fifty six thousand eight hundred twenty one dollars and seventy eight cents consistent with fault allocation the commission found that department liable for seventy percent of that amount which was three hundred nineteen thousand seven hundred seventy five dollars and twenty five cents and referred the award to the General Assembly for placement on an appropriation bill pursuant to Arkansas code annotated nineteen ten to fifteen be. Service commission everything to add to that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions and I believe the parties are here as well if they're question other any questions from the committee. Seeing none do I have a motion. A motion to approve the so this okay a motion to approve I've second. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. The ward's claims. Award claims appealed by claim miss this can please give us a brief description of the client. Okay this is claim number one nine one zero four one Edward Romare versus the Arkansas state police and reprimanded claim seeking four thousand eight hundred seventy six dollars and ninety nine cents because the contents of his moving truck were allegedly damaged when his truck was searched by Arkansas state police and subsequently re packed Mr Romare and his friend were driving from Portland Oregon to Fishkill New York the Arkansas state police denied liability during the hearing the commission had a chance to review Mr romance picture showing damages property video footage from the trooper's camera and testimony from the parties the commission subsequently found the damage to the property likely occurred while the moving truck was re packed however the commission found that several factors that indicated fault lay upon both parties rather than solely on the Arkansas state police as such the commission is on forty percent full to the claimant and sixty percent fall to the state police in considering the amount of the ward the commission found that per case law the proper measure of damages was a fair market value of the property immediately prior to the search claimant only provided the replacement cost of the property hence the commission use its best judgment to determine the fair market value at one thousand five hundred dollars pursuant to fault allocation the claim was allowed at sixty percent of that amount which was nine hundred dollars claimant appeal seeking the full amount. Service commission everything that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions. Or any questions the committee. We have one. Sir hammer. A reserve member see where the twenty two thank you Mr chair I whether your point. Just curious in their search did they find anything that you let a result to affirm their suspicion that he was transporting something legally my understanding is that they did not they did not answer okay thank you thing Mr. Total you have. Okay. Any other questions from the committee. Do I have a motion. From the committee. I have a motion to approve the Nine hundred dollars I have a second I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed no. Motion carries. Adam D. negotiated some agreements stress can can you be brief description the claim please. This is claim number one nine zero six one eight stern's Conradin Schmidt consulting engineers incorporated versus the Arkansas department of environmental quality stern's in the Arkansas department of environmental quality entered into a services contract for by stern's was to provide design services for appropriate closure of the neighbors landfill and also perform construction quality assurance in addition to star as a general contractor cold perform capital improvements through its own contract with the department stern sought in excess of three hundred fifty thousand dollars from the department for out of scope contract work that are 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 three 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 a hundred and eighty nine thousand dollars to the General Assembly for review and approval. Serving you have anything to add to that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions and I believe the parties are here as well as their questions. Committee or any questions. Your motion. A motion for. I have a motion okay. But may I ask out of blocks everything I'm sorry a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. He opposed no motion carries. Adam AS the night in the mist appeals by calling. Was discontinued give a brief description of the client. Okay this is Adam F. one it's two zero zero zero zero four nine Andre Crump versus the Arkansas professional bail bondsman licensing board. Lehman Andre Crump allege that his reputation slandered and that he was subjected to discrimination when the director of the bail bondsman licensing board told prospective employers the crowd was not a good person and that he was a conceited black man with dreads who has a record and did not deserve a position of authority Crump allege that he passed the bail bondsman licensure examination but companies refused to sponsor him after speaking to the director to the directors alleged legal and ethical ACT and slandering of his name Krups sought approval provision of licensure without a company sponsor he also sought monetary compensation for the time after he passed the licensure examination during which he was deprived of a license the board filed a motion to dismiss which the claims commission granted the commission dismissed the claim holding that it was not authorized to ward injunctive relief nor did it have authority to order order the board to issue a license the commission also found that the complete appear to be against director individually which was outside the jurisdiction of the commission claiming appeals. Service commission I related to that Nasser but I'm happy to take any questions okay are there any questions from the membership. I have a motion to oppose the commission's decision. I have a motion to have second. I have a second. All in favor say aye. He opposed no. Motion carries. Item two. This is two zero zero two five nine berry Ford versus the Arkansas department of Human Services Clement berry Ford saw one hundred thousand dollars alleging that a DHS employee provided in sexual favors in exchange for money while he was receiving treatment at the Arkansas state hospital he stated that he was under a lot of medication and was an easy target at the time DHS moved to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted the commission dismissed the claim finding finding that for did not make any allegations against the H. S. or alleged facts demonstrate how DHS would be liable for his damages claimant appeals alleging that the hospital did not protect him when he was under a lot of medication. Commission everything that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions any questions from committee. Do I have a motion to oppose the commission's decision. I have a motion second. Second all in favor say aye. Any opposed no motion carried three I think we're going to hold on that one until later to correct. That will be moved to a later date item for. This is claim number two zero zero eight four nine Mitchell one versus the Arkansas game and fish commission Clement Mitchell one sought one point nine million dollars in damages alleging that a game and fish officer entered his property company by others to retrieve government property related to claim its federal employment Mister one and his employer's at the US department of interior had exchanged several emails indicating that Mister one was terminated from his position these emails also discussed arrangements for pickup of equipment Mister one alleged that the game and fish officer disassembled A. Shotton lock security gate clearly displaying a no trespassing sign without probable cause our invitation he further alleged that the officers actions resulted in personal injury and also resulted in the severe disabling medical condition that cause loss of his employment the game and fish commission filed a motion to dismiss arguing the claim that was fired from his federal employment the day before officer entered with others to retrieve the equipment the commission granted AGS sees motion to dismiss finding that the officer did not go to claim its property until after the claimant's employment was terminated the commission further found that although claimant advise that he would have the items waiting to be picked up. And. Had requested the best notice of the pickup the fact that government police arrive to reclaim the property did not rise to the level of conduct that is extreme and outrageous beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community finally the commission found the claimant's mental health diagnoses occurred more than a year before the officer went to claimant's home claimants to serve subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied claim an appeals. Sir we do you have anything to add to that nice I'm happy to take any questions I have a question here senator rice you're recognized. In reading over this Not making any assumptions of. on this but I am interested in. The entrance of a no trespassing. Supposedly without a warrant that I feel other law enforcement would be required to have could we have some explanation on that. Well I think the commission yes Sir the commission reply relied upon the emails that. We're between the claimant I'm sorry I can't understand you sorry I can take off the mask as well here. Bullet Michael of clothes that better yes okay the. Claims commission relied upon the emails between the claimant and his employer where he had said the items will be here waiting for you he did ask for advance notice which he did not get **** the commission found that him saying the items will be here and ready to be picked up to be six to be significant and also that the claimant if he did not want people to come onto his property to retrieve the government equipment that he could have made arrangements to meet them elsewhere to give it to them to justify as. Entering legally justifies entering a no trespassing. Piece of private property well his claim was based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress and with the commission found is that he had not stated facts to support such a claim. A understand that what I'm trying to do that we can take this maybe to another. Meeting but I I am greatly concerned. A press that that is set when a law enforcement agency. Goes beyond what could be handled. Through a legal process. And would have eliminated all of this time and paperwork. And I'm concerned about the law enforcement agency that won't go to that. Small amount of. Rebel or other law enforcement agencies do so I don't I'm not again I'm the what you're dealing with is a different subject but I wanted to make that statement and well look further into this maybe later thank you. I believe the agency may be here as well if there are questions. I will let him give the answer that. If you please state your state your name and who you're with the record please yes chairman Cozart on James good heart I'm with the general counsel with the Arkansas game and fish commission Sir I think I can answer answer senator rice's question senator rice it was a civil matter not a criminal matter the officer was asked by the US fish and Wildlife Service to be directional to help get the officials to the the claimant's address in a rural location they did not know how to find him to find his residence they understood that the game warden was familiar with that area is matter fact of although it was not information presented it was it was prepared it was in an incident report the officer had been to the property at least six times at invitation to bring. Dear to this individual he had asked for road kill deer or other things and so the officer was familiar with entering through the gate so it was purely a civil matter to give the aid or correction for the federal officials to get them to the property and so knowing that he had been through this gate many times with the understanding of the claimant he simply open the gate let the officials drive up to the location where they could meet They could meet the claimant so it was it was not a criminal matter. Was there any life for lamb. At risk. No Sir no Sir there was not I think the officer again was under he was under the belief and understanding that the federal Supervisors were expected in that he simply was and accompanying them as a courtesy and again the concern is one what this is. Turned into the other concern I have when you disassemble a gate I don't care if it's been all the angel whatever. In go into a piece of private property that says no trespassing life and Liam is at risk. And I don't feel. Normal law enforcement. Should be doing that when there is a process to get an order from a judge that authorized that that's my concern thank you. Senator hammer you're recognized. Thank you of. So the state of official was there at the request of the federal official correct. That's correct did the state official open the Gator this state official open the gate or do you know. I believe our officer open the gate again he was familiar having done this with the claimant being present on some occasions okay but on this occasion did he have the claimant's permission to go on the property. Not specifically but he had never been denied told not to come on the property either he had been invited to bring road kill deer on occasion when the claimant was not even there he brought it and would leave it as directed by the claimant okay in what was the G. if I understand this right he was terminated the day before correct. I think the emails indicate yes he was terminated prior to this day I'm not sure if it was the day before or even earlier but it was before this date that the visit was made and what drove the agency to feel that this was a sense of urgency to handle it in the manner that they did. To go and enter his property without and did you have a search warrant thing or this was just show up and get it it was it was the US fish and Wildlife Service had had email correspondence and telephone communications officer was simply asked to be a guy were two or to get people there it was just a courtesy he had no. The idea that they were that that there was any surprise or anything of that nature it was simply a planned visit as far as he knew and he was being courteous to help get them there okay I guess last question is with the emails that he did the individual. Was the individual made knowledgeable of the fact that the officers would be there that day to pick up the equipment. I'm not sure what the claimant new Senator hammer I know that Our officer was prepared to testify with the witnesses that they had a phone conversation with an attorney with the US fish and Wildlife Service that morning and she told were officer herded that they were that they were all being expected to come pick up the property and so are officer believe that he was. able to a company at their request accompanying them and that they were being expected to come collect his laptop his ID his truck keys just standard things that an employer would collect from the employee that has been separated from his employment so should be no surprise that individual that correct on up that day he may have been surprised he came to the gate but he should have been surprised that they were shown up there because there is adequate communication exactly that they were coming okay Senator thank you thank Mr. There any other questions. Seeing none do I have a motion. I have a motion to accept the Decision by the. Board of second I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Any oppose. Motion carries. five. This claim number two zero zero nine five one Leon Collins versus the Arkansas department of transportation in his claim Leon Collins allege that his vehicle was damaged after hitting a pothole in the state highway the Arkansas department of transportation denied liability and filed a motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The commission granted the motion to dismiss finding the claimant did not allege any facts regarding the departments prior knowledge of the pot hole or the department's failure to repair it within a reasonable time claimant appeals. You have a feeling that mystery no Sir I'm happy to take questions though. Senator hammer you're recognized thank you this program the request of the department or anything I'd like to get the policy as to what the time frames are that once reported the reasonable time frame the potholes specially on the our state should be filled and I've I've got like three constituents in last year and a half the room some major rams on their vehicle so could you could I get that from the department for future reference please. If the chair would allow I will allow. Good morning if you to state your name and who you're with you're recognized good morning Mr chairman trellis sparks attorney for the Arkansas department of transportation. And to address your question there's no. Set rule that we have but we do try to promptly address concerns when the public makes them known to us or when our own investigations make conditions known to us generally I would say a forty eight to seventy two hours are teams trying to get out address those concerns but there's there's not a written policy or rule. I would say that we have over sixteen thousand miles of state highways that we maintain and that our crews do you go out and and. Observe and look for problems but it's impossible to be it everyone of those areas every day and every hour to know when those potholes arise and and as we know that's a road hazard and they are going to arise city of dedicated team to take care of this in the peak season of potholes yes Sir and and all year long and every district has a maintenance crew that patrols and and looks for problems are thank you thank Mister. Representative Lynch. yes sell it buys the citizen report a pothole in the road. And I called the highway department today that do you get back with me and say we're going to take care of that problem art is that yes into the system and it gets taken care of it didn't get taken care. What we do not make return phone calls a lot of times a citizen doesn't leave a return phone number name even sometimes the and we have online means to report and we have our hotline to report but now it's not our process to return those phone calls but we do try to get out it immediately if we can if not within a day or two to get that taken care of okay so you don't think the taxpayer expects communication back from the highway department my report a problem. Well I have. I think they expect action I think they probably preferred that and and it it you know. If if they ask for a specific phone call back and we and we certainly trying to return phone calls within twenty four hours okay alright thank you. Senator us you're recognized I would just add for the juror that that has been discussion in the highway commission idle oversight committee that. I thank director tutor. A has heard and the concern that they're trying to work on some type communication that's better for citizens to have a response back so I appreciate your question and I I think they're working on the system maybe that will allow some of that whether by email text whatever ails for knowledge and as we know customer service is a big part of anything and it can keep back from escalating sometime and I think director tutor understands it thank you. Any other questions. Do I have a motion to pull the decision. I have a motion to post second I'm second all in favor say aye. Any opposed no. Motion carries six. Item six is case number two zero zero six seven eight Johnny well versus the Arkansas department of Human Services and the Arkansas workers compensation commission claimant Johnny well sought three thousand dollars in damages which allegedly stemmed from an accident from an incident on January seventh two thousand ten we're claimant was pushed by a coworker at the Arkansas state hospital claimant stated that his leg began to swell and that he was in pain but that he did not go to the hospital he later reported injury to supervisor five days later by telephone when he was unable to work is scheduled shipped the Arkansas workers compensation commission and the department of Human Services separately moved to dismiss the claims the commission granted both motions to dismiss the commission granted the workers compensation motion because the claims commission had no jurisdiction over claims arising under work workers compensation law pursuant to Arkansas code 19-10-201 for. The commission granted DHS is motion to dismiss finding the claimant had not stated facts to support a negligence claim against DHS the commission also found the dismissal was proper based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations Clement appeals. Serbia related to that. No Sir but I'm happy to take any questions okay I have one of is it ten years kind of a little out of. Apportioned to wait to make a claim yes Sir and that's why the claims commission found that his claim against EHS was barred by the statute of limitations see this little bit out of the. Scope of time would allow to anything to happen so you have any questions from the committee. Do I have a motion up hold. Decision a motion. Second all right all in favor say aye. Any opposed no motion carries. All right we're down the correctional denied dismissed an appeal by Clement we have an option to batch these or to hear him separately. Do I have a motion to batch I have a motion second. I have a second all in favor batch these three as a three three a stay a yes Sir. We have someone here okay that would well we can we can vote that down and let them we won the. Seven okay I would just check if you would withdraw your second your video okay we'll hear these up individually then. Then realized over here. All right Adams G. would be number one miss does contribute your brief description of that. IMG one is claim number one eight zero eight two four walls a gardener junior versus the Arkansas department of correction Clement Wallace Gardner junior file this claim against the Arkansas department of correction on October second two thousand eighteen seeking five hundred dollars in damages claimant stated that his family had mailed him a copy of an obituary Clement allege that the department employees copy the obituary and provided him a copy instead of giving him the original in violation of ADC policy the department filed a motion to dismiss Clement did not respond and the claims commission dismissed the claim the commission found the gardener had failed to show how the department violated its policies Clement subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied claim an appeals. Everything that no Sir happy check any questions seeing no questions I have a motion to withhold the general I have a motion. Second all those in favor say aye. He opposed no. Thank you. To. This is claim number one nine zero four oh eight Paul Stacey versus the Arkansas department of corrections claimant Paul Stacey sought fourteen thousand seven hundred sixty five dollars in damages for property that was alleged that allegedly went missing one Tucker unit officials packed his property for his move to the Commons unit. Claimant fall to grievances which were rejected his third grievance was considered but rejected as untimely department officials subsequently visited with the claimant and additional property was sent to his family the department denied liability and move to dismiss the claim arguing the claim that fail to exhaust his administrative remedies thereby depriving the claims commission of jurisdiction the claims commission granted the department's motion to dismiss finding the claimant fail to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to file a timely grievance climate filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied claim an appeals. A dead. Yes I'm happy to take any questions that okay have a motion to this claim which was denied by the commission. The motion to boulder okay have a motion to oppose. Second all right all those in favor say aye. Be opposed no. Motion carries I'm three. This is claim number one nine one zero one zero Derrick Johnson versus the Arkansas department of corrections Clement Derrick Johnson sought two thousand one hundred forty four dollars and fifty one cents and damages related to a broken MP four player that was not fixed or replaced by access corrections under warranty placement allege of the department and access corrections were in a tool contractual relationship with him the department denied liability and move to dismiss arguing that the claim that was making a claim against the wrong party the commission granted the department's motion to dismiss finding the claimant had not stated facts to support a breach of contract claim against the department Clinton appeals. The servi everything that yes Sir having to take any questions any questions. Motion. To oppose I have a motion second a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed no motion carries is the word out of that point is there any other business to come before this committee today. Seeing none I move with Jr. Thank you for coming.