ALC-Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight
Video
Transcript
50 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 6, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
It was a standard request for the amount owed plus costs and attorney fees. And that's by statute, too? Well, I think it's just customary that you ask for your court costs and attorney fees. It's not specifically under the labor statutes, but I think it's provided for in the general litigation statutes that a prevailing party in a lawsuit can be awarded attorney fees.
and that's up to the court's discretion to award them or not. Well, that should be in statute. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Senator Payton, do you have a question now for him, for this one, or do you still want to go to the end? I'm going to
make it specific to this. Okay, that's fine. Go ahead. Do you have other questions? No, sir. You're recognized. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, basically, some of
my questions are being answered, so I don't mind sitting back. But one thing, I'm curious, and we can apply that to B1A or all of them, however you want to answer it,
but are these defendants that we're going after, are they all licensees of the department?
Chair
Unverified
1:17
of any, it could be any business. They're not necessarily from professions that we license. like the very first one is a remodeling company they may be licensed come to think of it by our contractors licensing board but that's not you know if somebody were to come in and and file a claim against say a health related
industry that's licensed by the Department of Health you know our jurisdiction is just based on the fact that it's a claim for wages that one of or your constituents didn't get paid.
So is it possible for somebody to file a claim on somebody that is not licensed by the state of
Chair
Unverified
2:02
Arkansas at all? Well, yes. There are some professions that don't require licensure. I understand. I'm
just trying to figure out what made the Department of Labor and Licensing a court.
I mean, basically, you're running a small claims court, and evidently your jurisdiction doesn't stop at the licensee so i'm just curious how broad your jurisdiction is as a court to run a small claims court i mean i don't know what legislation or code set this up or how long we've been doing it but this is the first i've become aware of it and it seems to me like you're handling things that should be handled in in small claims court in a court of law and i thought the reason may be because they're licensees but evidently that's not
a requirement so uh i guess i may be asking attorney general's opinion on some
Chair
Unverified
2:59
of this unless you can enlighten me more yeah yes i can um this probably goes back to the 1920s or 30s the you know we were the department of labor long before we became the department of labor and licensing and under the arkansas minimum wage act statutes this is one of the things that your department of labor has always done is enforce the minimum wage and overtime laws and then
in this instance a lot of these are the smaller wage claims and there's a jurisdictional limit of two thousand dollars or less um under these statutes uh because we don't um you know if we we don't handle labor litigation that the big law firms in town handle on a lot of these cases these are just to help the people that couldn't otherwise afford representation but one of the things the department of labor has always done is try to enforce the minimum wage laws make sure that
people are getting paid a fair wage and they're getting paid for their labor so that's where this falls under and you know these cases will go to court if we can't reach some sort of informal resolution with the employer but we do have a formal process where we look at these things you know we have investigators that investigate the claim then they'll come to a determination whether or not the money's owed or not before we go forward with it so they're definitely checks and balances in what
we do but we are there to protect your constituents and make sure they
get paid well and I appreciate that it these ten claims that are before us today how many of those are overtime
Chair
Unverified
4:39
claims or um there's only one wage an hour claim on this list and it's very small it's from a small employer that had a car wash business so it actually is under
two thousand dollars as well so specifically this one we're on uh
b1a what was the employer's reasoning for not
paying was it just they were broke or they had a reason or they made an argument about whether or or not they owed it or can you enlighten us we don't have any
Chair
Unverified
5:10
of the of the derogatories here you know where they state their position yeah and and every one of these probably has its own little story on this one the employer could never furnish proof that they actually had made payments to these employees she said she made cash payments I tried to get proof from her that the payments were made the claimant swore up and down that they had never gotten paid so the claimant in
this case was considered more credible and we pursued the case and you know she is you know everybody gets their opportunity in court to come in and make their case and the judge can decide who they want to believe or not believe in this case we thought the employee was the one who was in the right
and that happened in court in court of law
Chair
Unverified
5:59
uh in court that employer that kind of tells me something too usually that employer never even filed an answer so they they they claimed to
me that they had had made those payments and i tried to get proof of that and they never furnished any and then when i filed suit they never appeared in court and had any proof to show to the court either okay so I think we reached a good result in that one I appreciate it so thank you madam chair
so I just want to kind of clear up something make sure that we understand you are not the court
no they don't they're not the court there is somebody that goes that else besides them that does it I thought that was
your first question about the AG's opinion was that you were wanting to make sure they weren't reaching outside their jurisdiction so they're not they're not acting as a court you're recognized so that's two different
things you just said I understand they're not a court I was trying to determine whether they're acting as a court and some of the things that he made statements to I'm still puzzled as to whether or not they're crossing the line but I do appreciate you trying to straighten that out thank you yes sir all right are there any
other questions for one or B 1 a seeing no further questions do I have a motion for review a second any discussion all in favor say I opposed no motion carries let's go down to B 1 B
Chair
Unverified
7:35
yes that is what we would like to see happen in every case the employer in that instance and I worked out a arrangement that they
could you know he didn't really dispute that he had owed the money and in two installments we got the $1,500 back wages paid in full and typically when that's the case I'm not gonna try and impose attorney fees or costs on top of that we just got the employee paid.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
8:10
Senator Flowers, you're recognized. So the employer has paid? Yes, and we
Chair
Unverified
8:15
dismissed the lawsuit. He didn't pay. I mean, there are an awful lot of cases that never
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
8:24
get to court. Why is this before us, if the employer has paid? Because
Chair
Unverified
8:32
whenever we file a lawsuit we report to this committee that we have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the department so it was it all all of these cases are lawsuits that we had to file because we weren't able to collect them prior to
Speaker 20
8:48
filing suit um so we come here and report on the status of them before your
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
8:54
it's a report just a report but why don't they just say dismissed on their report to us
and why would we need to even have him talk about
this it wasn't on dismissed at the time that we
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:14
did this ma'am i want to know are any others uh
been dismissed um uh yeah uh let's
Chair
Unverified
9:25
see item d got dismissed because we were never able to locate the whereabouts of the defendant to get good service on the defendant i really need to stay
in order though we have to vote on each one separately okay okay
I think. Okay. Thanks. Are there any other questions on B1B? If there's no more questions, do I have a motion to review? A second? Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Motion
carries. Let's move down to B1C. Thank
Chair
Unverified
10:08
case I had an agreement with the defendant to pay the wages he did not honor that agreement so we filed suit since that time we haven't been able to locate him for service so I've asked for a motion to extend the time to get service and we're doing a what's called a skip trace to try and see if we can't locate him because he doesn't deny that the money's owed and at one point he agreed to pay it but now he's gone AWOL on me
representative Piner you're recognized thank you
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
10:41
madam chair just curious how much does it cost the department to do these I know because we picked you said we picked some cases to go after court costs and cover you guys and then some we don't so based a rough figure how much does it cost you guys to do these cases or more
Speaker 15
10:59
well I think it's absorbed by you know the
Chair
Unverified
11:02
staff that we have you know I don't get any extra for handling these cases than I do for handling all the department's affairs so from a legal standpoint I guess you get me for free and then our
investigators are there to look at child labor violations over minimum wage and overtime violations you know they have a full slate because our state is one of the states where if anybody files a complaint we're on a duty to look into it and we have investigators that these small wage complaints but also if it's a child labor complaint if it's a failure to pay overtime or minimum
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
11:38
wage you know so okay thank you manager are there any senator flowers
you recognized are the court costs for filing waived by the
Chair
Unverified
11:52
yes they are there's a statute that says we don't have to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
11:57
pay filing fees no filing fees but you have to pay fees for service exactly that's exactly how it works and that generally runs what fifty dollars per defendant and i just wanted to uh ask and you can say you agree or not the work that the department does is by statute is it not it is so all of this that you're reporting to us in terms of what the department did
in determining whether to pursue in court is by statute. Yes. That should help, I think Madam Chair, the committee to understand, I mean, he's not doing something that is not authorized by our statute
which comes from the legislature from us so I just think that
all these should be in a group and
we should just approve all of them or review all of them are you
making a motion to batch those Senator and I've got a
I am yes I am and I've got a motion and a second is there any discussion on batching
the rest of them together seeing no questions do I have a motion in a second all in favor say aye opposed no the
motion carries motion to batch oh yeah motion it was a
motion to file them all by batch and file thank you ma'am you yeah you're dismissed
all right thank you all just making sure before i let you go not a problem if you ever
Chair
Unverified
13:56
have any questions about anything we do over there call me i'd be happy to talk to any of you and i appreciate the work you do up next is b2 which contains
three litigation reports from the university of arkansas system will someone from the agency please come to the table and introduce
yourself and then present one at a time
Speaker 100
14:32
good afternoon madam chair I'm Sherry Robinson senior associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas system good afternoon
Chair
Unverified
14:39
my name is Amber Schubert and I'm associate
general counsel at the university of arkansas
system you can proceed to uh 2a and then we'll after
each one we'll have to vote okay
Chair
Unverified
14:52
yes thank you madam chair i thought i would just start by explaining um that on these three the reason we are here is arkansas code annotated 10 3 3 12 which requires us to um notify the bl the bureau of legislative research of any pending litigation so this is these are cases that just have been filed typically they're in the very early stages
i do have one i'm going to report to you on that we have managed to resolve in the very early stages so that happens sometimes too but i just wanted you to understand um why we're here okay so b2 is john aloysius versus the board of trustees of the university of arkansas mr aloysius is a current employee at the university of arkansas at fayetteville He's a tenured professor who filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on age and race.
We were actually able to resolve that one already. We engaged in talks with him about a position that we were considering him for before he filed suit, and we were able to make that happen, and he has dismissed that
claim. Are there any questions? Senator Payton.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So these reports on action being taken is
something new in the last couple of years that this committee has started looking at. So I've got some questions over procedure, and this case is a good example of some that I've looked at here on the agenda today.
We really don't, we're not receiving any information here about what the arguments or what the exposure was. i mean down at the bottom of page one the case history says that we have filed the the university has filed an answer yes i think we should have privy to see what that answer was so i can well let me just continue so then also it says there at the bottom under 4a relief sought is damages injunctive and declaratory relief cost and attorney's fees we don't know what that dollar
amount is nothing here is telling us if this is a fight over a hundred dollars or over a million dollars now i do appreciate the current status means that we don't have to worry about it y'all taking care of it but i'm madam chair and staff and and everybody else if if we're going to have agencies report about the litigation so that we can we as legislators can evaluate the exposure to the state in this litigation i think we need more information so can you opine on why
Chair
Unverified
17:37
why you didn't include the rest of the information thank you senator payton i can provide just a little bit of context from my perspective and then i think it looks like um some of our staffers may have some information but um i think you're right i agree the way we're doing the this statute has been in existence for a while the way we're doing it in this committee seems to be changing a little I heard your I heard the committee's questions last time and for example on B2B I did provide
those documents to BLR because I'm hearing and trying to respond in real time to what you want historically we have not provided that in from that much information the only thing I will say is our answers and things like that are of public record um however this is a very public body our opponents are often listening to us and so sometimes we are in a little bit of a precarious situation at the very beginning stages like we are when we report to you on giving you our whole
reasoning you know sort of our litigation strategy and things like that so um i just wanted to throw that out there um i am i do hear and i'm not asking for strategy i
just like to read the answers that are filed anyway thank you madam chair representative purier you're recognized yes ma'am thank you chair
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
18:57
you said this one is settled this one we have resolved and did i hear you say that um he didn't get a position that was open and then he sued you and then you gave him position then he dropped the suit is that how that corresponded it's a little more um sticky than
Chair
Unverified
19:12
that we were in discussions with him for a particular position those discussions fell apart he essentially stopped pursuing the position the lawsuit didn't pertain specifically to that that position but we were able to resolve the lawsuit by just re-engaging him in those discussions that we were having anyway
are there any other questions seeing no other questions do i have a motion to review a second second any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor
say aye opposed no motion carries moving to b2b
Chair
Unverified
19:51
thank you madam chair b2b is elissa white versus the board of
Chair
Unverified
20:02
is elissa white um so to be clear we're on elissa white who is a former employee at the University of Arkansas at Monticello she resigned her position and then after she resigned she filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on ADA and FMLA
retaliation as well and then this one I did provide the documents I hope the committee members got it I filed a motion to dismiss which the court mostly denied this will give you some idea of how these things go so the court granted just a part of my motion to dismiss after that i filed an answer and i have included a copy of the answer as well the university denies all of the allegations and we're moving forward with discovery in that case are there any questions
seeing no questions do i have a motion to review a second any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Now let's move down to B
Speaker 100
21:10
agendas with my fellow counsel here and apparently mine had my case at B so I apologize for that. It's Clifton Davis versus Sergeant Greg Rosinski. Mr. Davis is a former employee of a vendor of
UAMS, Crothall Services and he was terminated he alleges in retaliation for protesting a parking ticket he received from the UAMS police department through Sergeant Rosensky UAMS or the board has filed an answer on that making sure it was known that he was not employed by UAMS, UAMS was not involved in his termination at all and Sergeant Rosensky specifically was not involved in that termination. I did not provide a copy of the answer, but I do have one with me, which I am happy to give to staff to distribute.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
22:01
And the case is in discovery right now. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you. Just a legal question. Since Sergeant
Rosinski is an employee, can this gentleman who's suing UAMS, can he sue an
Speaker 118
22:22
individual employee? Yes. So he's actually sued Sergeant Rosinski and his individual capacity under a statute called 42 USC section 1983 and as long
as UAMS has reviewed the matter and determined that Sergeant
Speaker 129
22:36
Rosinski did not act outside the scope of his employment he
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
22:41
is still represented by the board. Okay so what could the sergeant face any kind of penalties repercussions or whatever from the outcome does he
Speaker 118
22:50
have any exposure exposure yes potentially if punitive damages were awarded there would be a different sort of review of the case to find out if it was some sort of intentional act usually if there's a
punitive damage award our hands are tied and at that
Speaker 129
23:06
point it would be against him in his individual capacity we do advise them of that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
23:12
at the very beginning as well so theoretically if there was a fines that would be money coming out of his paycheck or are we talking about employment termination or would the would UAMS be responsible for covering any of those kind of costs?
Speaker 129
23:25
Only punitive damages would come from Sergeant Rosinski directly. Okay so theoretically in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
23:29
the course of his work he could assume if this went the wrong way he could end up having to pay
out of pocket because some individual was disgruntled about how this was handled
Speaker 118
23:44
you're correct in it conceivably yes chances are
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
23:47
no though hopefully correct are there
any other questions saying no other questions do I have a motion to review second are there any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.
Next on the agenda is C1A which is proposed litigation settlements from the Department of Finance and Administration. Will someone from the
agency please come to the table, introduce yourself, and present your report. Thank you Madam Chair. Members of the
Speaker 140
24:26
committee, Alicia Austin Smith, Revenue Chief Counsel for DFA. And I'm Brad Young with
Speaker 142
24:31
the Office of Revenue Legal Counsel. So we
Speaker 140
24:34
are here today to ask your review of a proposed litigation settlement. The case was Blake Burnett versus Hudson. It was in Craighead County Circuit Court. This was an appeal from a
decision from the prior Office of Hearings and Appeals. The taxpayer was audited for tax years 2017 through 2021. It was a sales and use tax assessment for taxable sales and sales of tangible personal property the parties have reached a potential settlement where the the assessment would be reduced based on new newly provided documentation essentially it was a 48 000 tax assessment would be reduced to 20 000 and the department would waive all corresponding interest and penalty and we're happy to answer any questions are there any questions
Speaker 6
25:15
think senator flowers okay i'm i missed your introduction it's been settled well it is a proposed settlement you would have the the
Speaker 140
25:22
opportunity to tell us no you don't accept this settlement but we have both the taxpayer is represented by council we're of course represented by council and both parties have reached a potential agreement contingent on your approval so
Speaker 145
25:34
you you do have a tentative yes yes ma'am yes okay sounds good to me again i make a motion
okay uh do we have any other questions i
have a motion to review do i uh
And I've got a second. Is there any discussion on the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:59
motion? Yes, ma'am. You're recognized. You know, Madam Chair, I was looking at that statute that
we are operating under here now, 10-3-3-1-2, notification of lawsuits affecting state. It's behind each of those first, I think, sheets, or at least it's behind B2B. And it gives us the authority as this body, this subcommittee, if not the subcommittee, the whole General Assembly, to determine what actions should be taken to protect
the interests of the General Assembly in the state of Arkansas.
all and so I'm wondering I mean beyond us approving or making a motion to review what happens after this do they take that as a go ahead and settle is that what that is yes ma'am is that what
Speaker 145
27:02
you understand we wait for Friday but yes ma'am you wait for the full ALC yes okay yes all right thank
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:09
you okay so discussion on the motion I think the
motion is to affirm okay instead of review
we have a motion in a second we've done discussion all in favor say I opposed no thank
you thank you miss Irby if you'll come to
the table and use yourself we'll move on to
the claims review portion of the agenda for this part of the agenda miss Johnson will read a brief summary of each claim followed by any discussion or question from members and then the subcommittee will take action on the item items in part d of the agenda are reassurances of lost or expired warrants salary corrections or unpaid bills where
the agency admittedly admitted liability you know introduce yourself for the record you want her to do that first my name is katherine
Speaker 156
28:18
irby i'm the director of the claims commission
Speaker 160
28:32
with the claims commission okay miss johnson thank you madam chair item d1 is claim number 260102 Stacey Ryan versus Arkansas Department of Health. The claimant filed a claim for an unpaid salary differential in the amount of $27,220.72. Respondent recommended payment of that amount,
less payroll deductions pursuant to Arkansas Code section 19-4-1602, and claimant agreed. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Do
Speaker 143
29:06
you want to add something, Ms. Erby? No, ma'am, but I'm happy to take questions. Are there
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:14
any questions? Representative Meeks. Thank you. So how did we miss $27,000 in someone's payroll?
Am I reading this correctly? Is this what's happened? This is unpaid wages, unpaid salary for $27,000? The claim explanation
Speaker 164
29:27
described as administrative error, that there was a
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:30
differential in her pay. that one of her certifications of being a communicable disease nurse specialist was removed from her base pay due to administrative error. And so this is correcting that error. Okay, so this is no one caught
it for a length of time, which is how it got built up to $27,000?
I believe that's correct. The differential was not added to her base pay from January of 2018 through May of 2025.
Okay, all right, because I'm thinking that's, you know, over half a year's salary for most people, So it's a pretty big oops. Yeah. Yes,
sir. All right. Thank you Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions. Do
I have a motion to approve this item? second Any discussion on the motion
seeing no discussion all in favor say aye those against opposed
Opposed say no Motion carries Now we're moving down to D item D2 is
Speaker 159
30:36
claim number two six zero one three two Jeff and Donna Sisk versus Department of Finance and Administration claimants requested reissuance
Speaker 160
30:43
of an outdated warrant in the amount of twenty three thousand eight hundred forty two dollars and thirty one cents payable from the Department of
Finance and Administration the claims Commission allowed the claim and
referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill miss erby would you like to
add anything no ma'am but i'm happy to take questions are there any questions seeing no questions do i have a motion to approve this item second any discussion all in favor say
Speaker 159
31:19
i oppose no motion carries moving down to d3 item d3 is claim number 260323 pottsville
Speaker 160
31:24
school district versus state insurance department
claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of 30,437 dollars and 38 cents payable from the state insurance department the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill
Speaker 143
31:41
would you like to add anything miss erby no ma'am happy to
take questions i have a motion to review uh second uh is there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor say i oppose no motion
Speaker 159
32:02
carries moving down to d4 item d4 is claim number 260393 dataman usa llc versus
Speaker 160
32:09
department of human services claimant filed a claim for unpaid bills in the total amount of forty two thousand eight hundred eighty dollars respondent filed an answer recommending payment in that amount the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill miss erby would you like to add anything no ma'am happy to
take questions do i have any i will have a question senator payton thank you madam
chair so it's unpaid bills why is is it not just part of their regular budget and appropriation why is it having to come through
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
32:41
claims because these relate to these invoices were incurred outside
Speaker 164
32:45
the current fiscal year and so that's when they come to the claims commission that i believe the agencies can only pay claims with some exceptions in the
current fiscal year so dhs is approving the payment of unpaid bills that they don't have appropriation for no this is not a reissuance of
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:13
a warrant DHS provided funding codes that will be used assuming
this is approved in place on an appropriations bill then when DFA
Speaker 164
33:20
reconciles it on the back end which I cannot speak to the details of that but I believe the funding codes provided in DHS as answer will be used then to reconcile
everything. Okay, I'll follow up on this one back channel. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
33:43
Representative Dotson, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd make a motion to batch the rest of D's, D4
through seven for the reissuance of warrants.
I have a motion to batch D4 through D7. Do I have a second? Is
there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Up next is part E of the agenda, which contains five negotiated settlement agreements. Ms. Johnson, you're recognized.
Speaker 168
34:19
Thank you, Madam Chair. Item E1 is claim number
Speaker 160
34:22
221189, Tetronics International Limited versus Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. The claimant sought upwards of $2.7 million for avoidance of transfers under the Arkansas Uniform Voidable Transfer Act and for common law fraudulent transfer. Claimant alleged that it has an outstanding arbitral award of over 5.6 million pounds against Blue Oak, Arkansas, LLC, which has not made any payments to claimant but has
distributed or transferred over $13 million to respondents. Claimant alleged that these transfers were made with the intent to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and sought to have the transfers voided and redirected to claimant. ATRS denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim, or in the alternative, to stay the proceeding until resolution of a related federal lawsuit. Upon agreement of the parties, the claim was placed in abeyance pending resolution of the lawsuit. Following mediation, the parties resolved the federal lawsuit, and this settlement agreement
also resolved claimant's claim against ATRS and awarded claimant $65,000. The parties submitted the settlement to the Claims Commission, which approved the agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Claimant also filed a motion to non-suit its claims against ADFA, which the commission granted. Ms. Irby, would you like to
add anything? No, ma'am, but I'm happy to take questions. Are there any questions? Senator Flowers, you're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
35:54
recognized. We're talking about E1, right?
Yes, ma'am. So the settlement is
between the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, ADFA is going to be non-suited dismissed claims against them
what is Tektronix International was a warrant issued for payment
to them this is not a reissuance
this is a negotiated settlement agreement yes ma'am related to
that what What was it that Arkansas Teacher Retirement System did or
did not do that they owe Tektronix? The
Speaker 164
36:47
claim that was filed with the Claims Commission by Tektronix, it's a claim
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
36:56
for damages and transfer avoidance under the Arkansas Uniform Voidable Transfers Act.
and if there are detailed questions about the allegations I would probably refer those to the parties only because the commission did not hear any evidence in this
Speaker 164
37:10
claim before it went to a full claim hearing where the commission would hear it the parties had reached a settlement and so the limited issue before the commission was whether or not the settlement was proper and should be approved and the commission found that it was so detailed questions about the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
37:26
facts of the claim I would have to refer to the parties but I'm happy to answer any
Speaker 164
37:34
questions about the procedural history of this
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
37:36
claim well is the name of the claimant tectronics and then it has parentheses international and then limited in limited hyphen in liquidation yes ma'am what is that how they
filed the lawsuit yes ma'am are they in liquidation are they in bankruptcy what what is this I'll have that name of
Speaker 164
38:03
the that is the name of the claimant as it
was filed before the Commission but come to the table introduce yourself for
Speaker 202
38:23
the record and then you may begin sir thank you madam chair mark white arkansas teacher retirement system so senator this about a decade ago we invested in a plant that was being built in northeast arkansas called blue oak arkansas tetronics was one of the vendors that was supplying the equipment for the plant and without getting into too much details there was an accident
at the plant that as a result the business failed and did not continue. There was a lot of argument back and forth between Blue Oak Arkansas and Tektronix as to who was responsible. The end result of that was an arbitration award where some money was awarded from Blue Oak to Tektronix. Later there was another corporate entity of Blue Oak that returned some money to investors including us and basically Tektronix is saying that money should have gone to them instead of to us.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
39:12
and so you acknowledge receipt of the money yes we received the money now we we do
Speaker 202
39:18
not agree that they're entitled to it but we agree that we received it well then why would you settle with them because it'll be
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
39:33
less expensive to settle it than to defend it how much was the settlement for 65 000 65 000 is tech what is tectronics is that one of those games
Speaker 202
39:40
those is that where i saw that It's not that I know of.
It's my understanding is it is a, I believe, a British company is my understanding. A what? A British company. And what do they do? They build some sort of electronics equipment. But in this case, for Blue Oak, Arkansas, as I understand,
Speaker 201
39:58
they built the furnace that was going to be used to melt down electronics components to recycle some of
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
40:06
the components of those electronics. So Blue Oak settled, gave the ATRS money. Why doesn't Blue Oak pay these people or this company Tektronix?
Blue Oak is no longer in operation. So they're not in operation. Have they been dissolved?
are they in bankruptcy what why aren't they in operation they will as i mentioned earlier there was an
Speaker 202
40:42
accident at the plant involving the furnace i think basically the furnace exploded and they were not able to recover from that and so they went out of business several years ago
they probably had some insurance i think there were some some arguments over whether or not it should have been covered by performance bond but that did
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
41:02
not work out and so the business did not survive. Does the ATRS have an appropriation or a fund for settlements, separated for settlements or litigation
damages? We do not. So this is coming from the teacher's payment? This will come out of our trust funds,
yes. And your board approved it? Yes. So what is Tektronix International
limited dash in liquidation are they in liquidation that's my
understanding what does that mean is that bankruptcy
Speaker 202
41:37
I believe it's akin to bankruptcy and their attorneys are here and certainly can is it like it's bankruptcy or
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
41:47
something they're doing it on their own just all of a sudden decide to sell
everything I'd like to see those counselors up here
okay senator I'm I'm going to go to Senator Dotson first.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
41:58
Okay, but I'd like to have those tectronic attorneys at the table as
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
42:09
well. Okay. Senator Dotson, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark, if I'm reading this correctly, does it say that Blue Oak distributed, what, around $13 million to ATRS? No, sir. They distributed about $2.8 million to us. $2.8 million? Yes. And so, and you're settling for $65,000 out of that $2.8 million?
Correct. That's a pretty good return. I wish I could get that somewhere. Yes, sir.
Thank you. All right. Do we have someone here from Tektronix? Would you
please come to the table, introduce yourself for the record? And then you might make your statement.
Speaker 225
43:10
Here we go. Good afternoon. Dylan Potts. I'm with the Gill firm here in Little Rock. I'm actually counsel for the teacher retirement system. And so I wanted to give a little clarity as to how we ended up to where we're at. litigation yes senator yes ma'am i i had questions for tetronics lawyer he's right
Speaker 227
43:31
there he's here as well he was just going to give you some backdrop
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:39
well just to save me some time i'd just like to have that guy okay please introduce
Speaker 231
43:45
yourself for the record good afternoon josh thain on behalf of tetronics yes senator
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:50
okay so you your company is in liquidation what
tell us more about that that's correct senator my understanding is they
Speaker 231
44:00
went through a bankruptcy process and they were coming out of that bankruptcy and they have to maintain that name for this claim while they're winding up the process of the claims that went through that bankruptcy did the teacher
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
44:15
retirement system file a claim or
did you all make a claim because you all are the one that's asking
for the money did you have that listed as an asset or something to be collected Senator
Speaker 231
44:33
I'm not sure about the bankruptcy that actually occurred and the details of that but there were certainly this claim and this arbitration award that had occurred before that liquidation process started. Well should it have
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
44:48
started at all. If Tektronix was in bankruptcy, they should have made a claim there. Or at least
advise the court that they have some accounts receivables or something that they're waiting on. I don't see how this
Speaker 231
45:06
got there. I'm not aware of any claims that the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System had that could have gone through bankruptcy. Or
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
45:15
that Tektronix made to the bankruptcy court asserting that they had some
accounts receivables due. You understand what I'm saying? I don't think ATRS would have been in a position to make a claim. I do, Senator.
Speaker 231
45:31
And none of those claims were part of that, nor do I believe that they could have been. Well, when was your bankruptcy case? I'm not familiar with the
bankruptcy case, Senator. I apologize for that. There's more information on your paper clip on your
iPad, ma'am. On the iPad, ma'am. On the iPad? Yes. Senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
45:54
Dodson, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just as far as Tetronics is concerned, you're agreeable to the $65,000, and there is no dispute in this agreement.
Both sides are agreeable to $65,000. That's correct, Senator Dodson. Okay. And ATRS is the one that's
Speaker 242
46:14
going to be paying the $65,000. yes that's my
understanding thank you I have a motion at the proper time do you have something you'd like to add to the discussion you're welcome to come to the table and add if you'd like to add okay okay I just didn't want to leave you out if you wanted to be there are there any other
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
46:36
questions Oh senator flowers yeah okay okay I'll try to be brief but I'm just trying to understand this because
I represent a lot of teachers, and I question some of the actions of that retirement system over there, that
board, but how much of an investment did ATRS have with, what do you call
Speaker 202
47:01
it, Blue Oak? So, yeah, Blue Oak, Arkansas was the name of the business. In 2014, we invested $14.8 million, and then, let's see here.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
47:13
and your return on your investment was what it's
Speaker 202
47:19
well we invested I was looking and I apologize my notes are not complete here we put some additional money in but bottom line we put in about 16 million into the company we got just about about 3 million back so it was about a 13 million dollar loss on that company and the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
47:36
in the insurance or blue oak paid you all just that three million there's three million of cash
Speaker 202
47:42
that was available in one of the blue oak
corporate entities that was distributed to us and other money was distributed to other investors in
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
47:51
blue oak and has blue oak been discharged from
Speaker 139
47:56
bankruptcy i don't know that they ever know he's their lawyer no he's from he's tech correct but you ought to know i'm not aware if
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
48:06
they've been dismissed did tectronics make a claim against blue oak in the bankruptcy case they
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
48:14
aware of senator why wouldn't it and you don't know if they've been discharged do
Speaker 201
48:19
you know mr white senator i don't know if they ever filed for bankruptcy if they
Speaker 230
48:33
did i'm not aware of it does your attorney know are we asking about blue oak arkansas yes uh my understanding Arkansas again Dylan Potts has not filed for bankruptcy they liquidated their assets part of that liquidation resulted in the nearly three million dollars paid to the teach retirement system that was the amount of money that we were defending against tetronics who was claiming they were entitled to all of
those funds we whittled it down from 2.8 million to 60,000 and felt like the cost of our legal firm was going to be substantially more than that and so our recommendation at that point in time was instead of trying this case to federal judge christine baker senator that it made more economic sense for the teachers of the state to get this
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
49:15
thing settled at a huge reduction well i'm just confused about because i've never seen this and
that doesn't mean much but tectronics international limited hyphen in liquidation how how how is
that even an entity that can bring
Speaker 252
49:32
a claim your honor what that's okay my understanding is that that was a
Speaker 230
49:38
british bankruptcy process we reviewed as counsel for the system all potential defenses raised those to judge baker we went through several rounds of motions to dismiss and arguments before the judge. We whittered it down to a point that we felt like, again,
was the best result we could get for the system. I can't tell you exactly what the results were as far as the arguments on the bankruptcy, but we were comfortable that that entity had standing in Arkansas State Court to pursue the matter against Pinnacle, which was a subsidiary of the teacher retirement system. And so based on that, we felt like all of those defenses were properly
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
50:21
argued to judge baker and and that was your case against well that you
Speaker 259
50:27
were in with tectronics yes yes was blue oak in it too no it was tetronics against pinnacle mountain holding
Speaker 230
50:34
which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the teacher retirement system and then the claimants tetronics also filed this matter in front of the claims commission where they named the teacher retirement system. And so their
Speaker 259
50:49
position was because the funds flowed from
Speaker 260
50:52
Blue Oak, Arkansas to Tentable Mountain and Arkansas State Retirement System was the sole member and manager of Tentable Mountain. If those funds ultimately went to the system, hence they needed
Speaker 230
51:05
a valid claims commission case as well. And so that's
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
51:10
why we had two separate cases. And the
Speaker 230
51:13
federal case has been dismissed? It's subject to the approval from this board. And we were set for a trial in front of Judge Baker. I want to say it was a four-day jury trial, or I'm sorry, four-day bench trial. And we just felt like the economics at that point in time were significantly higher as far as the cost of the litigation, the potential exposure versus getting it settled for $60,000. And you think the judge will approve?
She will approve this, yes. She understands that it's, she stayed the case. She understands that is subject to this body's approval and judge baker actually in hindsight she won't have to approve it she will agree to the party settlement if this commission once it approves or if it approves we will file a joint motion to dismiss the federal case with prejudice it'll be gone and
Speaker 258
52:00
then the claims commission will be matter will be
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
52:05
gone as well well you know i understand
better now but it's something you said there
was some information in a paper clip
Speaker 106
52:23
under documents on your screen on the yes ma'am oh okay
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
52:28
okay that's a big hit to the teacher retirement system it's
Speaker 202
52:37
blue oak arkansas yes it certainly was and particularly in the 2010s uh the system made a
Speaker 201
52:43
number of venture capital investments like that and of course with venture capital you never expect that they're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
52:51
all going to succeed has this been reported to the legislative council i haven't seen
this normally i look for stuff like this in the newspaper uh this is a
Speaker 201
53:01
substantial loss Are you saying it was
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
53:04
what reported, this lawsuit or? The loss of your return investment. Well, it certainly
Speaker 201
53:10
would have been reflected on our regular financial reports.
But as I was saying, with venture capital, you know
Speaker 202
53:16
you're going to have some that are going to fail. What you're hoping is that you have enough successes that it balances out those failures. And we saw that with the successes the system saw with Big River Steel and with high bar in the 2010s and
now in the 2020s. Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the Claims Commission? I've got a motion, a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Moving down the list, ma'am, to E2, right? Ms. Johnson, you're recognized.
Speaker 159
53:54
item e2 is claim number 250 032 carl sullivan power of attorney for
Speaker 160
54:01
edward wesson versus university of arkansas for medical sciences claimant sought 3.5 million dollars in damages for medical negligence mr wesson underwent abdominal surgery at uams in august of 2022 in june of 2023 mr wesson underwent a second surgery to remove a retained surgical sponge Claimant alleged that the retained sponge caused significant damage to Mr. Wesson's abdomen
and that the doctors who performed the initial surgery failed to meet the prevailing standard of care by failing to document the proper sponge count prior to the close of Mr. Wesson's procedure. UAMS denied liability and moved to hold the claim in abeyance pending resolution of a related lawsuit. The claims commission granted the motion. The parties then settled this claim for $150,000. dollars the commission approved the settlement agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill miss erby would you like to add anything no ma'am but i'm
happy to take questions are there any questions seeing seeing yeah seeing no more questions a motion to
affirm a second all in favor say aye opposed no motion
Speaker 159
55:14
carries now e3 item e3 is claim number 250-040, Andrea Alvarez Martinez v.
Speaker 160
55:18
Arkansas State Police. Claimant sought damages after an Arkansas State Police vehicle ran a red light and hit her car. Respondent moved to hold the claim in abeyance, pending receipt of information related to exhaustion of insurance remedies. After claimant filed an affidavit regarding exhaustion of insurance remedies, the parties agreed to a settlement
in the amount of $25,000. The Claims Commission approved the settlement agreement and referred the award for review and
placement on an appropriation bill are there any questions seeing no questions do I
have a motion to affirm a motion in a second all is
there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye opposed no motion carries
Speaker 160
56:08
McKee versus Arkansas Department of Transportation claimant sought damages after she was rear-ended by an RDOT vehicle. RDOT did not dispute liability and moved to have the claim placed in abeyance pending resolution of all claims against any pending insurance coverage. After claimants submitted documentation that the accident fell outside her automobile insurance coverage, the Claims Commission scheduled the matter for a damages hearing. Before the hearing, the parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $21,810.79.
The Commission approved the agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Arby, would you like
to add anything? No, ma'am, but I'm happy to take questions. Do we have any questions? Seeing no questions,
do I have a motion to affirm the ruling?
A second? Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed,
Speaker 159
57:08
no. Motion carries. E5. Item E5 is claim number 251-934.
Aubrey Thompson v. Arkansas State Police.
Speaker 160
57:13
Claimant sought damages for personal injury and property damage after an Arkansas State Police vehicle pursuing a speeding vehicle struck her vehicle, causing it to spin and flip over. Respondent denied liability and moved to hold the claim in abeyance until claimant exhausted her insurance remedies. The parties then agreed to a settlement in the amount of $28,488.22. The Claims Commission approved the settlement agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill miss erby would you like
to add anything no ma'am but i'm happy to take questions are there any questions seeing no questions
do i have a motion to affirm the ruling of the claims commission and second any discussion on the motion seeing none all
in favor say aye oppose no motion carries now we'll move to thank you we'll move to uh f which contains two awarded claims that have been referred to pursuant of arkansas code 1910 215 b miss
johnson please give us a brief description
Speaker 160
58:19
item f1 is claim number two two one zero zero five buddy patterson versus arkansas department of transportation claimant sought forty thousand dollars related to a motor vehicle accident after a snow plow entered his lane of travel and struck his vehicle head-on respondent did not dispute liability but did dispute the amount of damages after a hearing the claims Commission awarded claimant twenty four thousand three hundred and eighty five dollars and thirty three cents for chiropractic bills towing and storage property damage and pain and suffering the Commission then referred
the award to the General Assembly for review approval and placement on an
appropriation bill miss Erby would you like to add anything no ma'am but I'm happy to take questions
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
59:03
representative Meeks you're recognized thank you ma'am question um since you said that there was um bodily harm that was involved in this assuming that this is approved the uh claimant is then saying they will not sue the state for any further uh health related issues regarding this or would they still have that opportunity to sue the state for any future health that they would claim as part of this accident um
the claimant had the opportunity to seek future medical bills in this claim and did not and so the amount of damages awarded by the commission I would expect to be the complete amount of damages
Speaker 156
59:43
that would be awardable out of this incident. Okay,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
59:46
that would be the final matter in this related. Okay, alright, thank you. Motion to approve. Just
one second. I'll take that motion in a second. Representative Stimel, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
59:57
you, Madam Chair. So to my understanding and when we were talking about with the state agencies, state police, RDOT,
we're not settling these until they are giving us releases of bodily injury and property damage, right? So this was
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:00:12
a contested matter right up. The commission had a full claim hearing. The ones that we heard before were pre-claim hearing where the parties reached a settlement in exchange for the settlement amount. The claimant released the agency from any future liability. There are legal doctrines that would prevent, once we have a final adjudication here,
there's legal doctrines that would prevent a party from coming back and saying, oh, but another thing, oh, but another thing. And so there isn't a release of sorts here, but there are other legal protections for the agency to keep a claimant from coming back and asserting other damages. Other damages such as medical bills? Yes. Okay,
thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, I have a motion to affirm the ruling.
Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Moving down to F2.
Speaker 159
1:01:14
item f2 is claim number two three zero six four one haley hudson et al versus department of human
Speaker 160
1:01:22
services claimant sought five million dollars in damages related to a motor vehicle accident a dhs employee driving a dhs vehicle to pick up a foster child for a sibling visit rear-ended another vehicle while speeding causing the death of the other vehicle's driver claimant's mother, Jacqueline Ashcraft, and injuries to one of the passengers, claimant's minor sister.
Claimant sought compensation for wrongful death and bodily injury. DHS denied liability and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the DHS employee was acting outside of the scope of her employment. Claimant moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that the DHS employee was solely responsible for causing the accident. The claims commission denied DHS's motion and granted claimant's motion. After a hearing, the commission found that the DHS employee was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident such that DHS was liable
for the accident. The commission awarded Ms. Ashcraft's estate $1,500 in funeral expenses and $1 million for loss of life minus $150,000 in previously collected insurance proceeds. the Commission awarded Miss Ashcraft's five children a total of one million dollars in mental anguish damages and awarded the injured passenger five hundred thousand dollars for bodily injury making the Commission's total award two million three hundred and fifty one thousand five hundred dollars
DHS filed a motion for reconsideration which the Commission denied the Commission then referred the award to the General Assembly for review approval and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Herbie, would you like to add?
No, ma'am, but I'm happy to take questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to affirm the ruling? Oh, wait, wait, wait,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:03:13
wait, wait. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Representative Meeks. Thank you, ma'am. Always
good for a question. The employee that caused the accident, what's the history on, you know,
are they still employed or what's kind of?
No, it was, it was, there was testimony at trial that the employee was terminated soon after the accident. Okay.
And why is DHS claiming that they, the employee would not be, so if the employee was transporting
the child, that would be within the scope of the work. So why is DHS saying that in their argument that it was outside the scope? Well,
and I think it's important to note here that DHS, neither party appealed this decision. um dhs did file a motion for reconsideration uh arguing the scope of employment issue
um but the commission uh and it said it finds in the strongest terms that the amount of time that the that the employee had been employed by dhs which was a short period of time that the amount of time is wholly irrelevant to whether or not the client that the employee was acting in the scope of his or her or her employment at the time and she was employed by dhs at the time of the accident and the commission founded that under Arkansas law that the important point in time to determine whether she was acting in the scope of her employment was at the time of the
accident and that whether or not she had taken a she had stopped to get lunch on her way to go pick up this foster child was immaterial because she had re she had resumed her job duties at the time of the accident correct okay and
then the the family here that uh has this loss are they in agreement that this is a adequate settlement i have not spoken
with the with the family but they did not appeal this decision either
okay all right uh i will make a motion then to unless you have
somebody else okay i'll get back to you representative meeks senator payton
you're recognized thank you madam chair uh bear with me i'll get some of this terminology wrong is all of this compensatory damages or
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:05:21
is part of it punitive uh there are no punitive damages awarded by the commission in this case there are loss of life damages there are damages that were awarded to the estate and there are damages that were awarded to the wrongful death beneficiaries
and in this case the commission
Speaker 164
1:05:37
found that $851,500 should be paid to was owed to the decedent's estate
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:05:44
and that's for loss of life that's for funeral expenses and that the wrongful death beneficiaries the decedent's children were entitled to 1.5
Speaker 164
1:05:54
million dollars and then there was a separate award related to the personal injuries of one of the daughters who was in the vehicle at
the time. So how many children are there and
Speaker 164
1:06:10
what are their ages? Do you know that? Yes and let's
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:06:17
see there were two adult sons of the decedent. There is one adult daughter of the decedent who following this incident she became the guardian of her two younger sisters. Those sisters may now be 18 mr. Jackson one of them is 18 one of them is still under
the age of 18 so there are five children there are five children is it specified how the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:06:45
1.5 million will be divided it is it is specified in
the order and I can thank you but there just to be clear there are no punitive damages there were
Speaker 143
1:06:54
no punitive punitive damages awarded by the Commission thank you
madam chair Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to affirm the ruling of
the Claims Commission? I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries.
we're going to move next on our agenda is part g which contains four denied and dismissed claims that have been appealed by
Speaker 159
1:07:31
the claimants miss johnson thank you madam chair item g1 is claim number 230783 katherine taylor versus
Speaker 160
1:07:38
university of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Claimant sought $385,000 for emotional distress related to alleged
medical negligence, patient abandonment, and discrimination by a UAMS nurse practitioner. UAMS denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the nurse practitioner was covered by professional liability insurance. The Claims Commission placed the claim in abeyance to allow claimant to pursue her insurance remedies against the nurse practitioner. Over two years later, UAMS moved to remove the claim from abeyance. The Claims Commission granted the motion, and finding that the two-year statute of limitations for pursuing a lawsuit against the nurse practitioner had expired
without claimant exhausting her insurance remedies, the Claims Commission also granted UAMS's pending motion to dismiss. Claimant requested reconsideration, which the commission denied, and claimant now appeals. Ms. Herbie, would you like to add anything? No, but
I'm happy to take questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions do I have a motion
to affirm a second any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye Opposed no The motion carries
Speaker 159
1:08:49
Item G2 is claimed number two five one one two three Sharon Greer Indiana Hayes Versus
Speaker 160
1:08:55
Commissioner of State lands Claimants sought unspecified relief related to the sale of their grandparents' property for back taxes in 2009, alleging that proper notification did not occur at the time of the sale. Respondent denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim. The Claims Commission granted the motion, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim, any applicable statute of limitations had expired, claimants failed
to state facts on which relief could be granted, and the Commission did not have the ability to grant claimants relief. Claimants now appeal. Ms. Herbie, would
you like to add anything? No, ma'am, but I'm happy to take questions. Are there any questions? Senator Payton, you're recognized. Just curious,
are any of these appellants here to make their case? Yes, we are. Okay. Would you like, is it this? I
don't need them up. I'm just curious in case somebody did want to hear from them.
Okay. okay representative makes almost made you a senator there
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:09:57
you go uh so i did not necessarily
want to hear from but i guess my question is is uh since it's a selling of the grandparents lot um have the has the to your knowledge what right then would the i guess it's the grandchildren that are pursuing this I believe so what claim would they have
on the property well there are limited there are limited legal options under Arkansas statute and the commission those were
laid out by the agency in its motion to dismiss and the commission looked
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:10:43
that the claimants had the option to contest the validity of a conveyance in circuit court which means that the commission wouldn't have jurisdiction that there are a number of statutes that could be uh relevant as to the time period they have to to contest a conveyance and that all of those had expired that that there is a statutory process
for contesting the conveyance, and the claimants did not follow that process. The claimants did not state a claim, didn't state facts upon which a claim could be granted under the Rules of Civil Procedure 12B-6, and that the commission didn't have the authority to grant the relief requested. And so for all of those reasons, the commission found that the claim had to be dismissed and that the commission was not the proper venue for the relief sought by the claimants. Okay. And then
two questions, and you may not know the answer to these.
Upon the, say if the grandparents had passed away and there was no will or anything, how would decisions be made upon who that land would then transfer to, if anybody? Is that maybe, I don't know if that's what happened in this case, if they passed away and it was just never taken care of and the taxes came due, or, and you may not have that information. If you don't, that's okay. I would not say that I
am an expert on probate law whatsoever, but I do know that the grandparents did not have a will, that it is set out in statute specifically what happens and who gets what.
Okay. And do you know the amount of back taxes that was not paid? That is a
Speaker 282
1:12:15
good question. I do not know that amount. Okay. We're trying to
find that answer for you, sir. 13 96 61 and I assume somebody else
Speaker 316
1:12:39
owns the property right now yes sir it was sold so I believe so
representative Payton I mean Senator Payton sorry it's quite
alright thank you Madam Chair I would like to call the plaintiffs up to hear their side of the story
you're welcome to come to the end of the table
Speaker 320
1:13:24
introduce yourself for the record I'm Sharon Greer
you're right uh you're recognized is it payton yeah
so is it miss greer yes uh could you tell
us why you think that the uh land commissioner back in 2009 mishandled this and uh why you think you're entitled to something here yes
Speaker 324
1:13:55
well me personally i was never notified by the commissioner of state lands that attention needed
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:14:03
okay that there was needed attention to this matter maybe we
should start with what interest did you have in the property how were you an owner of the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:14:17
property i was never an owner of the property
my grandparents were were they alive or dead at the point that the land
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:14:26
commissioner was making notice my grandfather had passed and my grandmother was still
alive so why would the land commissioner be required to notify you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:14:34
um my grandmother was not able to make
decisions for herself during that time and that's the reason why um i did not know that this land that there was even a deed to the land until January of 2025, whenever the deed was given to me by one of my cousins at his father's funeral. I don't know how the deed landed in my cousin's father's um how he obtained it I have no idea okay um my grandparents became ill and they had
to come and live with my parents and then my mother became ill and it was up to the children of uh my grandparent the the grandchildren of my grandparents to handle my grandparents care because my mother became ill and um it was just a nightmare for us to say the least um i did not know that this that this deed even existed until january of 2025 that's whenever it came to my attention and me and one of my sisters started investigating to
Speaker 324
1:15:50
see what happened with the land
and we we found that it was sold for back taxes we had no idea and it was sold for like 1300 dollars worth of back taxes and that's that's what happened and that's the reason that we started pursuing like what happened to the land I can appreciate that but I
also can appreciate that the land commissioner probably had no idea who would want
to be notified all they have is the policy on
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:16:20
who they're supposed to not yes and they did notify my mother okay there are
certified letters in the packet that
Speaker 324
1:16:27
we were given by Mr. Phillips I believe yeah Mr. Justin Phillips we ran through we read through the package and my mother did sign some certified letters and at that time my grandfather was deceased and we were still having to manage my grandmother I didn't know that all of this was going on you have to understand my mother was a sick person she had liver cirrhosis and it interfered with her cognitive abilities. And so the sale of the land took place,
and my problem with this is that the final letter that was sent where a person is supposed to be notified that their land had been sold, it was sent to the address where my grandparents had their lot. and it was returned to the commissioner of state lands it was never delivered so uh no one or myself I didn't know that if I would have gotten that piece of of paper or information I I would
have you know contacted someone and told them hey look yeah I do have interest in this land I do want to pay the taxes on this land, but from what I've read with Arkansas law, whenever there is a final sale of a piece of property, the person whose property it is is supposed to be notified officially, and that was never done. The letter was returned to the Commissioner of State Lands, and it was never delivered.
And there were no instructions provided by the Commissioner of State Lands to any interested party what to do since the land had been sold for back taxes. That's my problem. Thank you.
Senator Penzo, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. What was
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:18:26
the property sold for? You know the sale value? yes if you'll give me just
Speaker 335
1:18:30
a moment I'm nervous I've never done anything like
this before understood it's five thousand five hundred ninety six dollars and
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:18:44
sixty one cents and at the time of the auction another problem of
Speaker 324
1:18:49
mine is that the taxes owed was one thousand three hundred and ninety six dollars and 61 cents and so there was an excess of proceeds which was $4,200. I asked Mr. Phillips what happened with that money and I guess Arkansas just absorbed that since we did not receive instructions
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:05
on how to collect the overage. Okay because that was my follow-up question was
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:19:14
where the money? Yes. Who received the proceeds from the sale? The state of Arkansas. We did
Speaker 324
1:19:20
not received the proceeds and also my grandparents paid twenty three thousand dollars for this property and it and the back taxes were one thousand three hundred and ninety six dollars and sixty one cents and it was sold for five thousand five hundred and ninety six dollars and sixty one cents and I have the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:19:42
ledger here that shows that they made payments each payment no further
questions thank you representative meeks you're recognized back to me what uh what what year was the property sold by the land commissioner in 2009 so why is it now just coming 15 years later well why not
file at the time okay as i explained earlier i did not know sir i did not know until My uncle died in January of 2025, and my cousin gave me the deed to the land. Okay. For some reason, my uncle had the deed to the land in his possession.
And so your uncle is one of the
sons of the— No, sir. He—my uncle—my mom died, and that left my father. My father—and the uncle that I'm talking about is a brother to
my father. Okay, so it wasn't—okay.
And so what would you be asking from the state in this matter?
Speaker 324
1:20:47
That's hard to say. I would like the wrong rotted. But
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:20:52
define that. Are you looking for the $4,200 difference?
Obviously, we can't give you the property back. I mean, what are you after? The $4,200
Speaker 348
1:21:01
difference would be reasonable, I think. um of course i would want
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:21:07
i would like more but i i'm a reasonable person and i know that
Speaker 324
1:21:12
things happen but had i known i mean this would have not ever happened okay and uh last question uh how big
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:21:18
is the property and where is it located and i don't need exact we talking like an acre
lock we talking hundreds of acres no no
Speaker 324
1:21:30
it's it's over an acre i forget how big it is it my My grandfather raised greyhounds on it. He had a greyhound farm on it. I don't know exactly how big it is. I'm sorry. I have the deed right here. And what county
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:21:45
is it located in, do you know? Crittenden. Crittenden. Okay. All right. Thank
you. It's not a question for you. I just need to make sure everybody understands. The commissioner of
the state land shall not be liable for any monetary damage to any owner, interested party,
party or purchaser of tax delinquent land for any action taken or a mission of action related to the sales of tax delinquent land and that's arkansas code 26-37-204f senator penzo you're recognized thank you madam chair um who
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:22:19
can answer the question uh with
the state who can answer the question of where that money went because i mean it i know that we try
to find you know there's unclaimed money out there and i just someone could answer the question of where that money went and please come to the table introduce
yourself and then you may answer his question Peyton Murphy
Speaker 358
1:22:51
I'm counsel for the land commissioner this
Speaker 359
1:22:54
parcel was sold in 2009 there would have been a period of time after that under which a
family member or an interested party the statute says a record owner it also extends it to parties within the first degree of consanguinity so it could be a record owner's children could claim the excess proceeds that period of time would have expired in 2013 for this particular parcel and at that time it would have as cheated to the
county senator Payton is a representative period or is your question for okay you're
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:23:40
welcome to so so the uh thank you chair the uh so
the unclaimed property if if it's a sale uh property tax delinquency it has a statute of limitations before it goes into um the great american treasure hunt as i think uh or penzo's talking about so it's it has a separate pot of money it goes back to the county versus goes into unclaimed property let me let me rephrase that so So if this is unclaimed property for this gentleman, the $4,200,
wouldn't it be sitting in the unclaimed property for that, or is that different since it's
Speaker 358
1:24:19
from property tax? It is a different
Speaker 359
1:24:21
process. First off, we pay all the back taxes owed, any penalties, interest, and so forth out of that. If there's anything remaining after that, there is a period of several years under which claimants can file a claim with our office for those after that period of time has passed it would best cheat to the county okay thank you senator payton thank you madam chair
i think i have a question for blr staff or legal whoever
our blr legal is based on the fact that this committee is in
place to trump sovereign immunity what authority do we have to make an award in a claim like this can you comment on what authority the committee has to make an award i know that she just left
to go see if she could find um miss marty can i go to senator sullivan's question while we're
waiting for the answer absolutely thank you sir senator sullivan you're recognized oh it's senator i'm so sorry senator clark
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:25:35
no we still have it signed into senator sullivan who's sitting right here uh thank you madam chair the does state law uh if i understand what you're saying state law says that if we have an overage after a sale that whoever the property belonged to or their children, et cetera, could file a claim.
But we don't have any procedure where we just notify them and the owner and
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:26:03
send them the money? We do publish all
Speaker 358
1:26:12
available monies on our website. In this case, they would have received that notification prior to the
Speaker 359
1:26:18
sale. I have some copies here of the green cards that the parties that own this parcel didn't receive they received
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
1:26:26
notification that the property was going to be sold but after the
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:26:30
property was sold and we had an overage we don't have anything in our laws that requires us to notify them that there was extra money that would legally belong to them no we don't we should
change that should we perhaps thank you senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:26:58
Dotson you're recognized thank you madam chair did we not change that recently in statute I'm it seems to me
as if in the last legislative session but it may have been they sometimes run together that might have been two sessions ago we changed that to where any
overage goes to the original owner of the
Speaker 359
1:27:27
particular statute came up some during the last legislative session as a result of a supreme u.s. supreme court case that and what that ended up doing was affecting our ability to donate properties and this this
particular process was kind of in the middle of that but as far as any recent litigation that would affect notifications I'm not sure of any I don't
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:27:53
know about notifications I think it was just the excess
the overage and that may have been in response to a lawsuit at the federal level I don't know but I'm pretty sure that changed to where any overage went to the original property owner after taxes are paid and it does
Speaker 358
1:28:13
there's just a claim process for them to be able to claim
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:28:17
that but that was a more recent statute that wouldn't affect this particular situation because outside
Speaker 373
1:28:26
the statute of limitations i would have to check on the history of that statute to know
Speaker 359
1:28:31
how you know exactly how it read at this given time but the whole process has been in place for quite some time there may have been some recent changes on that but i would have
to check on that. Okay. I'm going to attempt to answer Senator Payton's question by what I have been
told. You can make a motion for the overage to be given to the family. We could put it in an appropriation to go through fiscal session and it be awarded to them. Did I say that close. Senator
Payton, you're recognized. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess the reason my curiosity was sparked in this case more than others is because I think the idea of America is
based on private land ownership. And I think it's a very, very sticky circumstance when the state takes property from individual ownership private property and i know the land commissioner that we currently have and the land commissioner staff and office their heart is is in the same world they they are trying to return this property to private ownership and in this case
I believe that the taxes were settled. There was an overage of $4,200, and I would move that we reverse the ruling of the Claims Commission and award $4,200. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Okay. Discussion
on the motion. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you. So I just want
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:30:18
to make sure I understand and we all understand what we're doing.
So I know there's a statute that sounds like it precludes us from doing this, but what I'm understanding is we can create an appropriation fiscal and then pay this out, which I'd not dispute whether, you know, it's owed or whatever. I'm just trying to figure out the mechanism by which this works. And so maybe I hate to call on staff, but put them on the spot, but I'd like to have that discussion so that I just have clarity as to what we're doing.
I'm sorry, Marty. I didn't mean to make
you walk all the way. Ms. Garrity, please introduce yourself
Speaker 382
1:31:13
for the record, and you may answer the question. Marty Garrity with the Bureau of Legislative Research. Thank you, Senator. if this body chooses to it can appropriate money through there's usually every fiscal session regular session there's a claims appropriation bill that would not go necessarily have to go through the land commissioner it could be paid separately for that from through the the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:31:35
appropriation bill okay correct so my understanding of that but i just want to make sure then the intent of the other language and statute would have no bearing this would be completely separate of that correct okay all right i may have some more questions as this discussion continues if it does but
thank you representative stymel you're recognized thank
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
1:31:59
you madam chair and while i can understand uh you know the claimant up here wanting some process here we do have a due process where
she can follow and to me this sets a precedent uh if we give out uh you know award this forty two hundred dollars for all the other folks uh that may end up coming to the table to see this i mean we have a state law in place and statute so if we don't like that statute we have a process to change that and uh when if it does come to a vote i'm going to be a
no on that for this reason representative purier you're recognized for
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:32:31
discussion um and we would also we would have to be aware that it would have to go to the
former estate right I mean we're not we're not the one
no I mean I believe everything you say man but we're not at liberty to decide that you're the sole heir to this property because we don't know how many other kids grandkids um not trying to muddy this up but it's getting a little muddy is that if that makes sense I'm just I'm gonna sit back and listen to more educated people than me ask
questions you're excused ma'am I'm so sorry I should have done that before we started. Representative Meeks, you're recognized?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:33:05
Yeah, and I guess that would be my question to the senator for the motion is,
who's this money actually going to go to? Are we going to divide it evenly among all the heirs? Who determines all those heirs? And I guess my question goes back to the land commissioner's office. If we do this and set this precedent, how much liability could we be opening up the state to on every
other claim? We're in discussion, so you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:33:31
cannot answer. So if I could answer. Yeah, so that's my concern. I mean, the statute of limitations expired on this almost 12 years ago. And while I feel for the plight of the family, if we're going back 12 years to pay this, then, I mean, how many other – it's a huge can of worms we're potentially opening up here.
Senator Payton, you're recognized. Thank you. And thank you, Representative Meeks. That's an important question. And that brings up the reason that this committee exists. So in the Constitution, we have sovereign immunity, and the state has no liability and does not have to disperse funds for any of the claims that are heard in here. This committee exists, and the claims commission exists, for the sole purpose of overriding that sovereign immunity in special cases
where we hear it and decide it's worthy of being overridden.
So there is no liability to the state by setting
a precedence other than the fact that that precedence may motivate people on this committee to follow through in the future. But every claim that we issue from this committee is reversing the sovereign immunity that
the state enjoys. Thank you. Representative
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
1:34:58
Barnett, you're recognized. I guess my question has a little bit more to do with technicalities.
If we go through, if this body goes through the process of doing a claims appropriation, would then the county who received the profit have to reimburse the state? I don't believe so. Okay. um
i think it would be our appropriation uh senator gilmore you're recognized hey thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:35:35
you and to the chair i think that would be the
appropriate way it would have to be handled um to to represent barnett's question um not a lawyer but i just think from a you know mechanism of how that would work um and i missed some of the back for so just as a question maybe to the chair um and i don't know if if this can be answered by the chair but since we're in discussion we can't hear any other testimony was there any discussion as to whether or not this went through probate or had been resolved in any any way at all possible
and i've seen some members shaking their head no so i'll take that as to answer my question um madam chair do you i'll restate my question did did you hear of anyone any discussion because we can't take any further because we're in discussion as to whether or not this had gone through probate and errors had been um enumerated and listed in a way that we know how the money is to be distributed there's nothing in the record about probate okay um so back to i think i don't
remember if it was representative purrier or representative stymel's question as to who does the money go to is still valid okay thank you or maybe
senator payton can answer that senator payton recognized thank
you madam chair and i do appreciate the uh concern that's been raised regarding who the proper
beneficiaries would be. So I'd like to amend my motion and make a motion to remand this claim to the Claims Commission for further evidence or findings.
It's a proper motion. Do I have a second? Second. I've got a
second. We're back to discussion. Representative Puryear, you're recognized. Um, I would,
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:37:38
I would, um, we'd also like trying to do this without asking a question. So, um, myself, the committee, we would realize that this money is not in possession of the state. It would be in possession of the County. So I think that, um,
Senator Payton's motion would be relevant in that, um, for review.
um okay just i'll just start over at that so just as and as i'm aware and the
committee is aware that the balance of that leftover money from the sale would actually be in possession of the county versus the state so it would kind of muddy the water further when we try to make an appropriation to make that right and so the so so according to representative makes the money would come out of arkansas state
general revenue and then the money would stay in the county
yes sir okay yes sir that's what i understand senator sullivan you're recognized for discussion oh i'm sorry he's sitting there
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:38:49
so that's why i think it's him uh senator clark thank you the i'm not sure why we would send it back because I think it's either a matter of justice or legality. Legality, and I'm not a lawyer, appears to be that the grandmother who was originally alive, the mother and the uncle
all sat on their rights. This lady didn't know, but they sat on their rights. So the only question would be whether, even though they sat on their rights, whether this committee would want to make it right or not so i don't know that sending it back to the claims commission accomplishes anything but uh i would be for doing something would you like to respond
senator payton well i'm not sure that uh sending it back to the claims committee or commission is going to do
anything other than uh solidify the fact that we have the people listed that were plaintiffs here and we know of no other errors but
i felt like it might be a comfort issue for some of the members of this committee to exhaust a little bit of effort uh to verify that these are the legitimate errors so i'm willing to send it back somebody else wants to make a substitute motion i'm also
willing to award the 4200 senator gilmore you're recognized for discussion and
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:40:19
and i was going to ask the senator to keep his mic on because i
was just had some questions i i don't know how that works and again i'm not a lawyer and i know we we've got a lawyer right here who might know how how that would work um what would be the process for that and again i know i'm putting you on the spot and i'm not trying to but i can't ask the claims commission at this point no i actually
think you're hitting exactly the truth of the matter is we have complain we have plaintiffs here that brought a case right and so we're deciding a case on whether or not they have an interest in it and and i'm willing to award the forty two hundred dollar difference to the hand raisers rather than to the state coffers okay because it was private
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:41:10
property so to to the individual and i guess her family that was represented here is is who you're saying
you're willing to award to yeah i don't
think the state had the interest in it other than
the taxes so okay senator penzo you're
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:41:38
recognized thank you madam chair I think the majority of the people in the room probably agree that if a property sold for tax reasons then whoever owned the property should have got the money
it shouldn't have gone back to the county in such a short time frame we need to fix that during the next legislative session um but i'd like to know who all has interest in the property i'm not sure i could make a decision today i'm i agree with you that that it shouldn't have played out this way um but i would also like to know um how many instances is does the money go back to the county uh there's there's a lot of questions i still have um i could feel more comfortable voting on this
later down the road. I know we've got a fiscal session coming up, and that's probably the pressure to get it done today, but there's a lot of things I'd like to have answered before I can make a decision. Thank you. Representative
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
1:42:44
Stimel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just continue in the discussion that, you know, there was probably a due process that was followed with a land commissioner, and I just don't want to be in the business of calling them out.
And I just feel that, you know, we really need to put a hold on this and there will be a where we could change statute in the future, and I think that's the direction that we need
to go in this matter. Senator Payton, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to let my motion stand, but I also would include, from what I said earlier, if somebody wants to make a motion to hold it over until the next meeting, there may be some discovery that could be done by staff i don't know i don't know who we would
try to get that from or maybe just have an opportunity for somebody to testify and bring evidence that uh that they're entitled to the money but anyway there is a
motion that we could make to hold the claim over
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:43:44
to the next meeting senator gilmore and again not to so with the permission of my colleague who just stayed as much, I would make said motion as a substitute to
yours, Senator, that we hold, ask claims to review, find additional information if
they can, and then we take this up at the next meeting. Okay, and on the advice of
attorney, I would ask that we hear this in session, so which that case it would be it would come back to jbc claims it would be yes it would correct so so i would make the substitute motion to senator payton to say hold this over for jbc uh claims in session
okay do i have a second i've got a second is there any discussion
on that motion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye aye opposed no motion carries move down to g4 oh
Speaker 159
1:45:10
yeah g3 sorry item g3 is claim number two five one eight three one carl bryant versus arkansas department of
Speaker 160
1:45:17
transportation claimant sought thirteen hundred thirty one dollars and fifty four cents in damages, alleging that his car was rendered undriveable after he hit a deep pothole on Interstate 30. RDOT denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim. The claims commission gave claimant 30 days to amend his complaint and provide good faith allegations that RDOT knew or should have known about the pothole prior to the incident, but failed to repair it within a reasonable amount of time. Claimant did not amend his complaint. The commission then granted RDOT's
motion and dismissed the claim for failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted. Claimant
now appeals. Ms. Herbie, would you like to add anything? The only thing I'd like to add is that the dismissal was without prejudice, which means that the claimant
can refile it as permitted by Arkansas law. Are there any questions?
Senator, you went off. Okay, motion to affirm second all in favor say aye opposed
Speaker 159
1:46:20
no motion carries g4 item g4 is claim number 251345
andrew simpson versus arkansas court of appeals claimant
Speaker 160
1:46:26
sought upwards of 1 million dollars in damages related to alleged failure to comply with a valid court order claimant was the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit that was remanded to ashley county circuit court over a year later a judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied claimant's motion to file relief for judgment from motion to file relief from judgment for fraud regarding a decision in Ashley County Circuit Court. Claimant claimed that this denial of his motion constituted failure to comply with the
federal court order and violated the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and his constitutional right to due process. Respondent denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim. The Claims commission granted the motion and dismissed the claim finding that respondent was entitled to judicial immunity that claimant had an opportunity to challenge the order through the judicial system and that claimant failed to state a claim claimant filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied claimant now appeals miss erby would you like
to add anything no ma'am but i'm happy to
take questions senator gilmore you're recognized so i don't know
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:47:32
what questions to ask um so let state that on the front end but Mr. Simpson did call me he does live in mine and representative Beatty's district I asked him to explain the situation on the phone it's very complicated very technical but he asked if he could have the opportunity to speak in
front of this committee so with that I ask that he come to the table Mr. Simpson you're welcome to
come to the table introduce yourself for the record and then you may give your statement
Andrew Simpson
Unverified
1:48:06
Thank you. My name is Andrew Simpson. Do you have a prepared statement? I do. You're welcome to present. I
Speaker 411
1:48:24
prepared a rebuttal for reconsideration and I'll kind of briefly read it to you. Claimant Andrew Simpson respectfully moved the Arkansas Claims Commission to reconsider its order, dismissing the claim for failure to state a claim
under 12B-6. Reconsideration is warranted because the dismissal rests on a clear error of law regarding the scope of judicial immunity and fails to address whether the conduct alleged was administrative, ultra-virus, and outside the respondent's judicial authority. In support of this motion, claimant states the following. Standard for reconsideration. The Arkansas
Claims Commission may consider a dismissal whether prior decisions rest on a misapplication of control in law or whether reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustices. This motion does not merely re-argue the merits but corrects a legal error in the application of a judicial immunity and clarifies the judicial basis for the claim. The nature of the claim, this claim does not seek damages for judicial
decision, legal reasoning, or the exercise of judicial discretion. Whether the claim arises from the failure of the respondent to carry out and enforce a binding remand order, an act which is ministerial and administrative in nature and not protected by absolute judicial immunity. Specifically, claimant alleges a remand order issued by a superior court
imposed a mandatory, non-discretional duty on the respondent. The respondent refused or failed to implement that order. That refusal was not an adjudicative act, but an administrative failure to perform the required function. The refusal resulted in compensable harm, cognizable by the Claims Commission.
Judicial immunity does not apply to administrative or ultra-virus conduct. The commission's dismissal rests on the assumption that all conduct by judges is absolutely immune. That assumption is incorrect. The scope of absolute judicial immunity. Absolute judicial immunity applies only to acts that are judicial in nature
and acts taken within the court's jurisdiction. Judicial immunity does not extend to administrative, ministerial, or ultra-virus acts, even when performed by judges. Failure to enforce a remand order is not a judicial act. The enforcement of a remand order is not an exercise of judicial discretion.
Once a remand is issued, the receiving court has no authority to disregard it. Compliance is mandatory. A refusal to implement a binding remand does not involve adjudication. does not involve fact-finding or legal interpretation, does not reflect judicial discretion, constitutes administrative noncompliance with a superior court mandate.
Accordingly, the alleged conduct falls out of the protection of absolute judicial immunity. Distinguishing Blevins v. Hudson. The commission relied on Blevins v. Hudson in dismissing this claim. That reliance is misplaced. In Blevins, the challenged conduct arose directly from a judicial decision made within the judge's adjudicatory role.
Here, by contrast, claimant does not allege, claimant does not challenge a ruling or judgment. Claimant challenges the refusal to carry superior court's mandate. The act alleged is administrative and ministerial, not judicial. Because the factual posture and nature of the conduct differ materially, Blevins does not control and does not require dismissal.
The Claims Commission has jurisdiction. The Arkansas Claims Commission has jurisdiction over claims seeking compensation for damages caused by wrongful acts of the state or its agencies, where no other forum provides relief. This claim does not seek appellate review of a court decision, does not ask the commission to reverse or modify a judgment. seeking compensation for harm caused by the state's failure
to perform a required administrative duty. Accordingly, jurisdiction is proper. Compensable harm is adequately alleged. Claimant alleges actual harm resulting from the respondent's refusal to enforce the remand order, including loss of legal protected rights, prolonged deprivation of access to adjudication,
concrete procedural injury flowing from the state's failure to act. These harms are not abstract or theoretical. They are the direct results of administrative noncompliance and are compensable under the commission's authority. In conclusion, the commission's dismissal rests on an overbroad application of judicial immunity and fails to consider whether the conduct alleged was administrative and outside the scope of the protected judicial action.
Because the claim plausibly alleges nonjudicial, ultra-virus conduct caused incomprehensible harm dismissed under Rule 12b-6 was erroneous. Wherefore, the claimant respectfully requests that the Arkansas Claims Commission reconsider and vacate its order of dismissal, reinstate the claim for further proceedings on the merits, and grant such other and further relief as the commission deems just and proper.
Chair
Unverified
1:55:57
respectfully submitted by Andrew Simpson. And I did make an attempt to pass each and every one of you a copy of this rebuttal to the reconsideration. But the commission didn't grant me the authority to do so. So I have him here. Representative Meeks,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:56:20
Simpson, for being here. So I listened to all you had to say, but I'm still having trouble understanding how you were originally harmed.
Andrew Simpson
Unverified
1:56:31
I've been denied due process. Okay, what's that mean? How? I've
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:56:43
been denied my statutory rights. Your right
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:56:53
the constitution right well i get that but
but but how so i mean were you harmed in some way physically was there were you denied a job by the state
did someone from the state do something to you what precipitated how were you
Speaker 419
1:57:12
denied due process well the uh district court remanded the case back
Speaker 418
1:57:17
to the circuit court and the circuit court refused to honor
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:57:24
that remand okay but what was the
original harm that they sent it back what why are
Speaker 422
1:57:40
with It was a violation of statute, U.S. Statute 60-C4.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:57:45
Which is what? I don't know that
Speaker 422
1:57:48
statute. Okay, that's a failure to recognize that land was given away in my family because of fraud.
Chair
Unverified
1:57:55
and I was seeking to recover that land
Speaker 423
1:57:59
for my family. Okay, so land was fraudulently taken from your
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:58:04
family and you're trying to get that land
back? Yes, I'm trying to get it reinstated so that we can... Okay, and
Speaker 422
1:58:12
who took the land? Do we know?
Well, they're still in probate. one of
Chair
Unverified
1:58:23
the heirs fraudulently represented the family okay so who does this does the state
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:58:33
have the land then no the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:58:38
the state sold the land because of fraud committed by a relative it
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:58:48
the okay and so what you're
hoping here is to get the land back or to get the
Speaker 428
1:59:04
value of the land no what I'm I'm hoping right now with this
Chair
Unverified
1:59:10
committee is to get some kind of justification for the for the acts that the judge committed by not allowing this case to be remanded back to his
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:59:22
court. I'm not sure. Again, I'm not a legal expert. I don't know if that's something that this committee has the authority to do. But ultimately my question was the harm was evidently someone committed fraud in your family and you're trying to get that worked out. That's what I was trying to get to. Thank you. Someone here from the
Speaker 64
1:59:43
Court of Appeals. introduce yourself for the record
Speaker 430
2:00:06
I am Ann Solomon Chief Staff Attorney for the Court
of Appeals did you hear Representative Minx's questions I did not I'm sorry Representative Minx you're recognizing All right. Thank
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:00:17
you. So I'm just trying to get understand in layman's terms what the whole issue is here. And based upon what he said, it's dealing with fraud land. Can you kind of help enlighten me based upon what's going on
Speaker 432
2:00:29
here? I can give you what I understand from the Court of Appeals case that was filed, which was Andrew Simpson versus Carl Davis doing business as Davis Construction et al.
This was a breach of construction contract case. Mr. Simpson had an agreement with USDA Rural Development to build a home, and there was a breach of contract that arose out of it. there was litigation that included federal litigation that I think is what Mr. Simpson is referring to. We had an appeal from a state court case out of Judge Gibson's case in Judge Gibson's court in Ashley County. That appeal came to our court, which was decided by the
Court of Appeals. The relief Mr. Simpson requested was denied. The case was affirmed. Okay. So
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:01:23
since this sounds like USDA, federal, federal court, why is the state involved in this? Well, there
Speaker 432
2:01:30
was some money that was involved that was being held, and so there were state law claims and federal claims. This state case that came to the court was an appeal of any of the state claims that arose. And so the Court of Appeals issued an opinion on those state law claims, which didn't have anything to do with USDA funding.
Mr. Simpson asked for several, asserted several issues that have presumed a reversible error. The Court of Appeals disagreed. I know Mr. Simpson filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was also denied, and he's exhausted his judicial remedies now on this matter. Okay, and how
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:02:12
much is the state portion of that money? You said there was a
Speaker 432
2:02:18
state portion? Oh, there's no money at hand here that the state itself is involved in.
There was money that went back and forth, I believe, between USDA and the parties in the amount of, it looks like there are $35,000 in disputed funds. There's no state funds here. Okay, so there's no state funds
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:02:39
here. the state was not generally involved in this in any capacity, no money? As I
Speaker 432
2:02:45
understand it, the state is only involved to the extent that there was a breach of construction contract claim filed in state court, which the state adjudicated in circuit court
and then was appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Petition review filed with the Arkansas Supreme Court, which was
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:03
denied. Okay, so according to this, the state has no liability whatsoever in what's
Speaker 432
2:03:08
happening here? No, sir. The extent of the Court of Appeals' involvement was purely in their role as exercising their judicial duties.
Speaker 282
2:03:16
Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Herbie would like to add. Well,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:03:21
just to piggyback on what Ms. Solomon said, that it's the Commission's position that where a party has a remedy through the courts, that the Commission does not oversee that.
We are not another level of review if you don't get the answer that you want through the state
Speaker 436
2:03:37
court process. Okay. Thank you. And I think we've
Speaker 418
2:03:46
kind of really got off of the issue here. I'm going to stop you right there, okay? That's my job to tell
us when we get off of the subject, all right? So let me go to the next set of questions,
all right? I still would like to make a comment.
Chair
Unverified
2:04:03
You can make a comment. Okay. The issue here is the Court of Appeals not abiding by a higher court's
remand order. Senator Flowers, you're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:04:19
now recognized, ma'am. So, Mr. Simpson, the remand order came from what court? It came
Chair
Unverified
2:04:26
from the district, the Western District Court. A federal court? Yes.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:04:35
Where did it remand the case to? It remanded
Speaker 418
2:04:39
the case back to the circuit court. In Ashley County? In Ashley County, yes, ma'am.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:04:48
And then what happened? The attorney for the Court of Appeals, so
can you put this together for me? Senator Flowers, I'll do my best. A case
Speaker 432
2:05:01
does not come to the Court of Appeals until there's a final order from the circuit court.
We cannot hear cases until there is a final order. That's one of the very first things that the Court of Appeals must look at before we take on
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:05:19
any case. Let me stop you there again. Absolutely. Okay. So, Mr. Simpson, did
Chair
Unverified
2:05:25
you engage an attorney? Did you have an attorney? I had an attorney. That was one of the questions that was directed to the circuit court. And they dismissed my attorney.
Speaker 418
2:05:38
Who dismissed your attorney? The circuit court did. At your request? No. I requested that lawyer, the attorney, be remained. Okay. Do you still have a lawyer? No. I'm
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:05:52
representing myself at this time. Okay. Have you requested the court, the circuit court in Ashley County, put your case back on their docket? Yes, I have.
Speaker 418
2:06:09
And what response? The case was dismissed. It was declined. What? They dismissed the case. Did they get an
Speaker 422
2:06:18
order? I mean. Yes, I'm sure. Yes, they did. Is the order in this file
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:06:24
that we have? it should be on your paperclip and
Andrew Simpson
Unverified
2:06:36
from that denial I appealed it to the Arkansas
Court of Appeals that's how we're here but
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:06:47
you were in federal court it was remanded back to the
Sharnae Digs
Unverified
2:06:53
circuit court for further actions do we try to
get somebody to answer and identify yourself for the record and then you may again hello my name is
Speaker 450
2:07:09
Sharnae digs I'm a senior assistant attorney general
I'm representing the Court of Appeals in the civil litigation division at the AG's office I'm gonna try to fill in some blanks as far as this remand order that he's mentioning. Judge Susan Hickey in the Western District of Arkansas, she was the federal judge on the federal case that Mr. Simpson was a part of. He was actually the defendant in that case and that had the Department of Agriculture involved in that case. So what he's getting at is that he filed a counterclaim when he was sued by the plaintiff in that case in that breach of
a breach of contract suit and when he had some federal federal claims and there were also state law claims and one of the defendants in that case the department of agriculture they removed the case from the state court to the federal court that's how it got before judge hickey and they severed those allegations to complain essentially she just took control of the federal claims okay And she essentially dismissed the case on the motion of the defendants, the federal defendants.
And in doing so, she sent the state claims back to the state court. But at that time, Mr. Simpson appealed her decision. The federal decision? Yes, ma'am. And he took it to the Eighth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it was denied at both appellate courts. And so eventually he asked Judge Hickey if she would grant him a motion for reconsideration, essentially, or release from judgment.
By that time, she felt like she did not have the authority to do that, and so she said this would be best. And that information he
Speaker 449
2:09:05
did include in his claims commission case. I believe you all should have that order because he did include that in his complaint, but the language exactly was, and I believe that's why he is consistently saying that the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not comply with the federal court, but essentially she said that this is best tried in state court, the remaining claims.
Speaker 450
2:09:33
she didn't have the authority to address those because she already lost jurisdiction over the state law claims when she initially dismissed them and then the a circuit and
Speaker 449
2:09:45
the a circuit affirmed her decision it did not hear his appeal and the u.s supreme court did not take up certiorari so there was no essential jurisdiction on her for her to rule on the matter so the The Arkansas Court of Appeals never had this matter before them,
certainly not her federal order. It went back to the circuit court of Ashley County, but there was nothing that the Arkansas Court of Appeals did that was not
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:10:18
in compliance with her order. These were separate entities altogether. I'm trying to
just understand his complaint, And that is that the state court failed
to hear the case as ordered to be remanded by the federal court.
Speaker 449
2:10:39
That's where, unfortunately, that's where Mr. Simpson doesn't understand the law. And I don't know if his attorney in Ashley County asked to be relieved from the case and the judge granted his attorney's request, but that's
Speaker 450
2:10:55
where having counsel is helpful in these matters because that's the only nexus or tension in this case where there appears to be some type of miscommunication on
Speaker 449
2:11:08
his end or misunderstanding of how these are separate jurisdictions, separate venues, and they're the only federal.
venue and state venue outside of the claims commission and the arkansas court of appeals they're the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:11:29
sounds court is judge hickey's court right mr
simpson i'm trying to understand the flow of this and the council is trying to be helpful but But to
me, it appears that you have filed a claim
alleging that the Arkansas Court of Appeals refused to follow
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:11:59
Yes. And they would not, the order to
remand, that wouldn't go to the Arkansas Court of
Chair
Unverified
2:12:09
Appeals. No, it would go to the Ashley County Circuit Court. Once they, and the questions of attorneys was on that appeal to the circuit court, because I had an attorney, and they didn't. You are an attorney? No, I had an attorney representing me. Okay. But the Arkansas Court of Appeals, he just vanished.
Nobody just gave him permission to not represent me. Who was that attorney? His name was Ron Goodman.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:12:41
Okay, I'm an attorney. I have some experience, but I don't know
if I could, you know, really figure this one out in such a short time.
But I don't see how you wouldn't have to go back to the federal court if you're alleging that the district court
or the circuit court in Ashley County failed to give you another trial.
When the court remands it, they say, try it over or consider it
Speaker 458
2:13:17
again. Well, the circuit court refused
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:13:19
to do so. Well, it sounds like they did, though, if they gave you an order dismissing it. And you could
have gone back, I guess, and complained about that if you thought that was something short of the
order remanding it and having a full-blown hearing.
Chair
Unverified
2:13:39
Well, I appealed the circuit's court decision not to obey the remand to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. and the
Andrew Simpson
Unverified
2:13:51
court of appeals did not did not act
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:13:55
I don't see how the court of
appeals most they could have said well you're right and it should be heard again down in Ashley County it's kind of convoluted
Chair
Unverified
2:14:11
yes I would kind of think so and that was my expectations but instead they just agreed with the circuit court to dismiss the case without hearing any
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:14:24
further argument. Well, I don't know. It just sounds like since you got an order ordering remand from a federal court, that's where you should
have gone back to say they failed to comply with the
Chair
Unverified
2:14:38
order of the court. I did go back to the district court,
and they referred me back to the circuit court. I don't have all the information in front of me so it's kind of difficult for me to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:15:02
navigate without it. Well, I'll ask the lawyers for the
court. Yes, ma'am. Have you all got his file from Ashley County Circuit Court?
Do you see where a hearing was set after the federal court ordered it remanded? I
Speaker 450
2:15:32
don't have the file with me either. I have all of his documents that's been filed with the Claims Commission, and it is convoluted, but I have the thorough order from Judge Hickey. She was clear she no longer has jurisdiction over the case,
any of the state law claims. So it was remanded to the Circuit Court of Ashley County pursuant to her March 15,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:16:01
2022 order. Do you see where it was set for retrial or motion
for reconsideration or anything like that to try to comply with the order of the federal court for remand?
I mean, he had to have had something in the file to go up to the Arkansas Court of Appeals If he's alleging that the court, the Ashley County Circuit Court failed to comply to give him a new trial or motion for consideration made,
Speaker 432
2:16:44
Senator Flowers. After the remand, the Ashley County Circuit Judge set a hearing on all pending motions.
At the conclusion of that hearing, the court decided that a motion for summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Carl Davis, would be granted. So it was a judgment against Mr. Simpson. That is the judgment that was appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. From there, there were several points that Mr. Simpson raised on appeal, all of which the Court of Appeals addressed. To speak to one of them, one of Mr. Simpson's points of error was that he was not appointed an attorney, but since this was a civil action, of course, attorneys are not appointed in those cases.
But so in the Court of Appeals opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed all four allegations of error by Mr. Simpson and also concluded that it had a final
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:17:46
order that it could adjudicate on the merits. And that
Speaker 432
2:17:50
action was taken in the form of a hearing? There was a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:17:55
hearing on all pending motions on January 23rd, 2023. So that would have been satisfactory compliance with the order of remand.
Speaker 432
2:18:05
So that is my understanding. That was what the panel of Court of Appeals judges decided when they were deciding whether they had jurisdiction to hear this
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:18:14
case. Okay. Okay. In the material, the file that
you have, does it show the order from the federal court ordering remand? I'm sorry, Senator
Speaker 432
2:18:23
Flowers. I only brought our court's opinion today. That would be in the official record at the Arkansas Court of Appeals clerk's office, though, and I'd be happy to distribute it.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:18:35
I would think that the court would have seen that as part of their deliberation in
Speaker 463
2:18:42
this case. Yes, Senator Flowers. One of
Speaker 432
2:18:45
the things that a court always undertakes to do when it decides an appeal is to make sure that they have a complete record, which the court reporter and the clerk's office in the county below have certified as a complete and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:19:01
accurate copy of all proceedings. Well, Mr. Simpson, in my point of view, I don't know
how long you had this attorney, Ron Goodman.
The court dismissed him. I don't understand that unless he wasn't an
Speaker 426
2:19:24
attorney in the first place. That was one of my questions to the
Speaker 418
2:19:29
circuit court, and also that was one of my questions to
Chair
Unverified
2:19:37
the federal court. He was dismissed, and he didn't file any information with the court requesting to be dismissed or anything.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:19:45
Well, you might consider going to the Office of Professional Conduct and inquire about Mr. Goodman's actions in representing you. And maybe you can get some relief there, but I don't see how you could say that the remand order wasn't
complied with. I don't have
Speaker 421
2:20:14
the records that the Court of Appeals is talking about,
Chair
Unverified
2:20:23
but there was that remand order was not acknowledged and because I don't have the information that you're asking me about
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:20:33
well the acknowledgement would come from Ashley County Circuit Court that's like
she said they set after you go to federal court and the federal court orders the county circuit court to do something the circuit court in ashley county then took some action on those motions and in effect it sounds
like they re-heard the case if they gave judgment to the man who was suing
Speaker 416
2:21:03
you no they never re-heard the case and they had issued that order of dismissal but
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:21:09
there was a motion for summary judgment she said
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:21:18
was issued before the remand order Well, I think you probably needed to keep the attorney or get another lawyer after Mr. Goodman.
I don't know why, under what circumstances, a court would have to dismiss your own lawyer unless that lawyer requested to be relieved
or you requested that the lawyer withdraw from your case.
Chair
Unverified
2:21:44
Yes, I went through all the legal processes that I needed to take. That's what brought me here today. And as far as the argument that the Arkansas Court of Appeals is now bringing up,
Speaker 423
2:22:00
I would request time to get that information and bring
Chair
Unverified
2:22:05
it before you guys so that we could get an accurate account of what actually occurred The Arkansas Court of Appeals is not, at this time,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:22:18
explaining. Well, the Arkansas Court of Appeals was not the recipient of the order from
the federal court. It was the Ashley County Circuit Court. But
Speaker 423
2:22:29
I appealed from the Ashley County Circuit Court to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:22:35
alleging that you never got the satisfaction of the federal court order remanding your case. Yes. And it sounds like they did. No, they didn't. Can I let
Ms. Arby? Okay. Ms. Arby has something, and then I'm going to go to Senator Sullivan. Okay. I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:22:52
would just note that if Mr. Simpson believes that the federal court did something wrong, he has a remedy through the court system. If he believes that Ashley County Circuit Court did something wrong, he has a remedy through the court system. If he believes that the Arkansas Court of Appeals made an error, he has a remedy through the Arkansas Supreme Court, which I believe he has utilized and exhausted that remedy.
So whatever his remedies may, whatever remedies may exist, they are not through the Claims Commission. They are through the court system.
Thank you, ma'am, for clearing that up. Senator, I almost said Senator Hammer. Senator Sullivan, it's
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
2:23:28
actually you this time, whenever I call. I'll move over to my chair.
I make a motion we accept the Claims Commission's request. do i
have a second any any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye opposed no motion carries moving down to h up uh up next is part h of the agenda which is
an awarded corrections claim that has been appealed by the claimant ms johnson please give a brief description of
Speaker 159
2:24:02
the claim thank you madam chair item h1 is claim number 220385 roy hoggard ii versus arkansas division
Speaker 160
2:24:09
of correction the claimant sought four thousand dollars in damages related to adc's destruction of photographs that he purchased claimant alleged that he ordered the photographs after pre-approval by the warden but that mailroom
personnel destroyed the originals and only provided him with black and white photocopies in violation of ADC policy. ADC denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim. The claims commission denied the motion and directed the parties to begin discovery. After a hearing, the commission found that ADC was negligent in destroying claimant's photographs and awarded claimant $30 representing the value of the photographs. Claimant now appeals, arguing that the commission's award should have been at least $1,000 to account for his legal costs.
Ms. Herbie, would you like to add anything? I do not, and we'll be happy to take any questions, but Ms. Tucker
will be taking point on this section. Are
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:25:08
there any questions Representative Meeks? What legal cost? Do we have any idea of a true value of that legal cost, or is he
Speaker 158
2:25:16
just making $1,000 up? There is no cost for filing at the commission, and I'm not sure what his details, the details of the cost that he wants, but I do know that he didn't file a motion for that
under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. He just filed a notice of
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:25:32
appeal. Okay. So if we approve this, what would
happen? If the commission decision were affirmed, Mr. Hoggard would be paid $30 outside the appropriation bill process and the claim would be closed. okay so we would not be giving him
the thousand dollars we're we approve this he gets a thirty dollars that he's due for damages and we're done unless there was a motion
otherwise some of their effect okay I'll make a motion to affirm
this oh we have a motion in a second is there any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor say I oppose no motion carries and with that I see no further i almost messed up part i of the agenda contains seven correction claims which were denied and dismissed by the claims commission the claimant in each case has appealed the decision we have a motion to batch these and we've got a second any
discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor say i oppose no motion carries item we have a motion to affirm those i've got a second any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor say aye oppose no motion carries item j members we will now move to the supplemental agenda which contains one item
which was submitted to the subcommittee after the february 1st 2006 deadline for inclusion on this agenda's meeting do i have a motion to suspend the rules to
take up this item a second all in favor say aye motion all in favor against no motion carries
uh the item is a negotiated settlement agreement miss johnson please give a brief description
Speaker 159
2:27:30
of the claim the item on the supplemental agenda is claim
Speaker 160
2:27:34
number 261265, Angela Stevens, a special administrator of the estate of
Zachary Moore versus Department of Human Services. Claimant sought damages related to the death of her son, Zachary Moore, who was a resident of the Southeast Arkansas HDC. Zachary died after multiple employees of the HDC restrained him in a prone position on the ground for approximately 13 minutes. Claimant alleged that even though Zachary was unresponsive following the restraint, staff did not attempt any life-saving procedures or call emergency services until more than 10 minutes later. Claimant also alleged that Zachary's death was caused by DHS's negligence
and provided a list of failures she alleged DHS acknowledged as leading to Zachary's death. The day after the claim was filed, the parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $725,000. The Claims Commission approved the agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Irby, would you like to
add anything? No, ma'am, but I'm happy
to take questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion? Motion to
affirm. To affirm and a second. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion
carries. This concludes our agenda. Seeing no further business, we're adjourned. Mr. Jerry. You
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Litigation Reports
C. Litigation Settlements
D. Reissuance of Warrants/Unpaid Bills/Salary Adjustments
E. Negotiated Settlement Agreements
F. Awarded Claims Referred Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-215(b)
G. Denied and Dismissed Claims – Appealed by Claimant(s)
H. Corrections Awarded Claim – Appealed by Claimant
I. Corrections Denied and Dismissed Claims – Appealed by Claimant
J. Adjournment
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 February 1, 2026 Deadline
Documents
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught Chair
Unverified
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Speaker 15
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 63
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 100
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 118
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 140
Speaker 142
Speaker 6
Speaker 145
Speaker 156
Speaker 159
Speaker 160
Speaker 143
Speaker 164
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 168
Speaker 202
Speaker 201
Speaker 225
Speaker 227
Speaker 231
Speaker 242
Speaker 139
Speaker 230
Speaker 252
Speaker 259
Speaker 260
Speaker 258
Speaker 106
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
Speaker 282
Speaker 316
Speaker 320
Speaker 324
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 335
Speaker 348
Speaker 358
Speaker 359
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 373
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 382
Representative Lincoln Barnett
Unverified
Andrew Simpson
Unverified
Speaker 411
Speaker 418
Speaker 419
Speaker 421
Speaker 422
Speaker 423
Speaker 425
Speaker 426
Speaker 428
Speaker 64
Speaker 430
Speaker 432
Speaker 436
Sharnae Digs
Unverified
Speaker 450
Speaker 449
Speaker 9
Speaker 458
Speaker 463
Speaker 416
Speaker 158