JBC-Claims (7:30AM-9AM)

Yeah. This meeting is called to order miss Herby you're at the table if you'll go ahead introduce yourself again yes Sir my name is Catherine are being the director of the claims commission. And will first consider the claims concerning the re issuance of warrants and section be. Mr the. Read. The first claim is claim number two three zero three zero one American Ehrlich would holdings incorporated versus Arkansas department of finance and administration corporate income tax section here claimant requested re issuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of a hundred and eighty eight thousand six hundred eighty nine dollars payable from the department of finance and administration the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Reserves the commission have anything to add yes Sir but I'm happy to take any questions. Members anyone have questions. Twenty seven. Representative Springer you're recognized. What led to the. Thank you good morning thank you Mr chair do we ever find out that the that this board ever leave the office to get to this place so the claims commission doesn't originally sent out the warrants what we get is a notification from the agency when the warrant is out of date and when they want us to re issue it they send us a request start the REISSUANCE process the Department investigate follow up Mr if you're recognized they have a vested gate to determine whether or not the warning ever left the department said that's not part of what came over to the claims commission so I'm I'm not able to answer your question I'm sorry. Thank you for the question. I'm just trying to figure out how hundred and eighty eight thousand dollar check gets lost. We see a lot of reassurances ma'am how. How it doesn't get deposited or how it doesn't have and in the time period I can't speak to on each one but I know we saw one. Several years ago for about nine hundred thousand dollars that the claimants that had been stuck into it or accidentally so. You for the question. I'm sure. Yes Sir I was just thinking maybe this is something that legislative audit could look into only a hundred and eighty thousand dollar check that's a lot of money thank you. Mister read the you don't track the checks do we may never have to go to like audit so we did check with the auditor of state when we receive a REISSUANCE request we do a double check with auditor state to confirm that the that the warrant is in fact out of date and that it needs to be you know that has been cast or anything but we don't deal with let god it in early real with relation to REISSUANCE as does that answer your question I thank to the best of your knowledge. Representative spring would you like for us to give a leg audit and see if we can find the response to the. Okay thank you we make a note of the please make sure we get to like on a. Members of my understanding that if a check is lost that's why they come to the commission and the commission here's the evidence after I don't know that you get in the House lost the fact is it was lost and. That that's correct Sir the how is lost doesn't doesn't impact the commission's decision would have an obligation to pay yeah and if we didn't pay them but will will give Legarda find that response I. Members of senator Wallace you have a question sure I do Was the original check I'm assuming was cancelled is does not work that way. It was not cast within the time of its well it was a viable check in the hundred eighty days I believe it is that if it if it doesn't get cashed or deposited in the hundred eighty days then That it can't be deposit after that and then in the process of re issuing that yes the old check if it does turn up somewhere can't then be deposited and cast. That is your question. Well yeah I was thinking about going to a bank but the. We issue our own checks in the bank we don't go to the bank issued the checks is that correct. IDFA issues the checks for the claims commission we re issue checked yes may issue states for okay because everyone to a bank check is canceled. The Bill. You have members I think the commission those art lovers questions going to the commission the rate is not up to the my understanding is is not up to the state to figure out wire house because there could be a myriad of reasons that a check is lost are unaccounted for we're only responsible for making sure that claims paid and if the claimant is in air are are a negligent in why they lost it or how they lost it I understand that I do the same thing sometimes there were responsible for paying. In this particular one service centers for your recognized thank you Mr I'm just curious as to how that would happen in the first place seems like to me if we were responsible and NO a fiduciary duties then checks like that shouldn't get lost in the first place well I I agree my wife often asked me that same question how did you lose it J. yeah but I think our obligation is to pay that. Members anymore questions. Do I have a motion to approve this item. In a second. Thank you. All in favor I. Opposed. I was moved the item B. to. This claim number two two one two one zero rocket software incorporated versus Arkansas department of finance and administration corporate income tax section claimant requested re issuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of fifty two thousand five hundred seventy eight dollars payable from the department of finance and administration the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. Any questions representative Eubanks you're recognized. Motion reissued or both the remaining ones I'm sorry I didn't go to I thank miss Herby do you have a apologize for Mister you have a question or statement. I was just turning it off okay all right. We have a motion to re issue the check of the is that the recommendation of the commission. Yes Sir yes second on the motion. Second. All in favor of the more questions. Single questions all in favor say aye. Anyone opposed. The food item three. This is claim number two three zero four two one SG gaming incorporated versus Arkansas department of finance administration claimant requested reassurance of an outdated warrant the amount of twenty seven thousand one hundred ninety one dollars and nine cents able from DF a name the ward is still outstanding and no duplicate has been issued a Class. The claims commission unanimously allowed the claim and referred for review in placement on an appropriation bill. They have a new screen up here I'm trying to figure out what the greens and Reds means so I apologize Mr would you have any comments. No Sir not this time I'm happy to take any questions that. Representative Shepherd your question well a motion but I also have a question the when these warrants are issued I understand that there's that they are stale but does are there steps taken either avoid the previous warrant or to monitor the warrants that are still out there because just because their past time doesn't mean that you know that I don't know how these are deposited with the state budget but out in the private sector just because a check it's past time doesn't necessarily mean that a bank wouldn't go ahead and and deposit or or endorses receive it so that was my question I have a motion to go ahead and re issued the warrant on this one as well representative Shepherd I feel or speakership I apologize I feel confident that that that is part of the DFA process but I I want to speak to it very specifically accurately and what I'd like to do is check with DFA to make sure I understand the process exactly I can email or get that information to you is that. Thank you Sir. We have a few more questions. Representative Springer you have a question. Thank you a comment basically thank you Mr chairman of thank you of representative Shepherd speakers Shepherd for your comments I totally agree if there needs to be some type of checks and balances phone outstanding works like this and so that's why I suggested that maybe later got it needs to take a look at this thank you yes I agree with have it done. The server giving up for the comments yes Sir and saying no question we have a motion to issue the warrant we have a second. All in favor say aye. All opposed. The man this motion is approved. I move to section three or B. three. We're not claims that were referred pursuant to Arkansas Code. Section nineteen ten to fifteen be. We're in section C.. Miss discovered you began. The first claim its claim number two zero zero eight zero nine Debbie brown as administrator X. of the estate of Chris brown and Joe brown versus the Arkansas department of transportation here claimant sought two million dollars in damages related to that Chris Brown in a single vehicle rollover accident on highway three sixteen north claimant's alleged that the accident occurred because the highway was flooded due to issues with the ditch next to the roadway claimants argued that decedent's death was the result of negligent construction and maintenance of the State Highway claimants further argued that are not was aware that this area was routinely flooded by way of complaints received prior to the incident and yet have done nothing to remedy your address the reported complaints of the flooding concerns are not denied liability following discovery and a hearing the claims commission found are not liable and awarded claimant's a total of one million nine hundred ninety two thousand eight hundred thirty eight dollars and seventy seven cents which was comprised of one million five hundred thirty seven thousand eight hundred thirty eight dollars and seventy seven cents to the decedent's estate for loss of life funeral expenses burial costs and headstone three hundred ninety thousand dollars to decedent's parents for mental anguish experienced after decedent's death and sixty five thousand dollars to decedent's two siblings for mental anguish neither party appeal the claims commission's decision the Commission transmitted the claim for review approval in placement on an appropriation. Mr really have any comment no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions. Members anyone have any questions. Representative Shepherd you're recognized so the question I would have. Related to this. I guess I would I have a number of questions but one would be how many claims to have has the state in recent years paid related to flooding of a state highway or improper construction or maintenance of the State Highway. I would have to go back and check claims commission records and is that amount of time I'm I'm unaware of another claim like this. And you know I see that there were some other factors that were weighed by the commission I don't know if the if the claimant's attorneys here if. Yes someone would like to give sheds more light on this but it I guess my concern while it meets obviously a tragic situation. It trying to be consistent in terms of how claims moved forward against the state in the future or what's happened in the past. It's a I guess I'm concerned that this is a a vast expansion of liability on behalf of the state if the state is now responsible for accidents of flooded roadways and so I don't know if there are other factors at play I've read the summary related to prior knowledge but I guess I would like a little more information as to that the that particular position. Yes Sir I believe the commission based on the way the order is drafted I believe the commission placed a lot of weight on the extensive testimony of witnesses who had known about the flooding problem for years and who had contacted art he testified that they contacted are not in various methods to notify them of the flooding and and I know that in and the Commission discussed at paragraph one eighty if the order and then one eighty one I know that The Commission referenced. Ref room one eighty one and. Elsewhere. The Commission referenced the fact that respondents employees testified that they had travel these roads IT asset schedule and that they had. They were not aware of the flooding problem or that that was their testimony and given the amount of testimony of other witnesses to the contrary the commission found that very significant. Or or yes. I don't. I think I hit you I would you get your **** there My I got. Go ahead that is. The order also references a few factors the decedent was not wearing a seatbelt time. The commission also the decedent's compared the roadway and the condition of the seats rear tires were factors in the accident can you speak to. Familiarity I don't know by this was the decedent familiar with the roadway or unfamiliar and secondly can you. share with us related to the rear tires how was that a factor in this accident. Well the when the accident happened the. The decedent was traveling to To if a friend of his and that presumably he and I think there's testimony he had been out there before and so that's where the familiarity with that roadway came from and. And the tires I think there is an issue with the tire tread that that the tires were there is there is. Less tread on there than ideal. Any further questions representative. Korean. I guess I would like to hear from the claimant's attorneys if possible to stick to your more as to their position on it But I prefer I appreciate the answers provided miss by miss serving as a claim which attorney available that you would come to the right place. If you would please introduce yourself my name is Brandon Lacy attorney for the brown of State warning. And then representative Shepherd if you thank you. Morning Mr Lacey the I guess I just have a question of a concern about. That this would be a an expansion of liability by the state Related to our highways which we have some of that we have some you know what the significant number of miles of highways across the state while I think the department does everything they possibly can try to to create safe conditions I guess one concern I have from the standpoint of this and and I don't know all the facts that's why I would like to hear from from you. But specifically with a flooded roadway could you share with us was this during the day was this at night what what speed was a decedent traveling I mean I just you can imagine from from our perspective that would be a number of questions that we would have because of the nature of this of the sense that I mean we have plenty of claims that relate to. you know we're a state vehicles involved where there's clearly some element of negligence this is different and I'm I just would like to hear more about why this state is more at fault here and should be on the hook for these damages so I appreciate your you elaborating on that thank you. Certainly understand Mister Speaker the concern and this this incident occurred and Phillips County where it's flat. Lots of rain lots of flooding so we understood at the outset the that there was a significant hurdle in arguing that there was some issue with the road flooding the reason that we believed it to be a viable case was because the the manner of the flooding and the evidence of the problem was overwhelming and the fact that nothing has been done in the years leading up to it was like was overwhelming in fact the evidence was that the the highway department actually created the problem not that this was just a road on flat land the flooded and they knew about it and should have done something about it it was actually that their work to the ditch to the north stopped at an intersection of county road the we're we're talking about highway three sixty one north to south there was a county road that ran east to west and intersected county road I believe two sixteen and I believe three to four years before this rack the highway department had to the call of mopping out cleaning out the ditch to the north of that intersection just basically reestablish the deadline because over time it obviously settlement debris flood and erosion happens and and there's no longer a ditch so they cleaned it out and then stopped at the intersection I create a bottleneck to where all the water and the water flow north to south that was the elevation so it created a bottleneck which where the water just essentially had nowhere to go it was it was going from an entire quadrant of acreage to the north flooding in this one spot stopping in overtopping the road. On the evening in question the NO a a I believe that's the the correct acronym but the weather service that maintains rain records had its best established a rainfall amount of point zero two inches of rain the very insignificant amount of rain it had started misting at the time Chris brown west a fish fry for the volunteer firefighter he was a he was a volunteer fire department firefighter in Phillips County. They've been eating outside the the fish fry was outside so it wasn't a torrential downpour he left of the testimony from his father was that it may have been missing at that point and then point oh two inches of rain leads to at least three inches of flooding because we had an over the top of it the entire road was submerged in water after point oh two inches of rain because there was so much accumulated water the ditches were already overtopping and so any any amount of rain at that point in the sense in the road lanes so you've got three inches of of rain over the road completely over the center line that's how you know it's three inches because from from center to shoulder isn't three inches two and a half inch pitch. Police officers testified water was over their ankles while they're working the scene so it's. The it's the egregious ness of the event that it when coupled with the fact that not only did the the highway department's actions their lead the creation of the problem we had a landowner that own the land adjacent to the incident right right where the water was flooding testified to the highway department's removal of all of his shrubs he he had actually planned he don't that that land generationally and testified to his family planning trees along the edge because he wanted to make sure to prevent erosion from his field I think he had a a. I may miss speak up because there's a pecan Grove or something at one point to the right and he wanted to eliminate erosion from his field on under that did so he planted all of these trees and vegetation at some point the highway department came and cut a cut that all down and never replaced it so you've got a full ditch bringing all of the water for who knows how many acres to the north to this one spot and stopping you have no vegetation preventing any water coming off from the chase of land of which leads to point oh two inches of rain completely flooding this wrote. Then Rick regardless of whether they created it or whether it was just man made you know over time events that that caused the problem you have the knowledge issue and you know obviously the family. Testified that there was knowledge but the and as far as Chris's knowledge of the road he drove it a couple of times it's not it's not that a I think the reason it was in the order was because the commission was pointing out the inconsistency of one of the department's defenses that he drove it all the time he should have known it floods he should have taken better care to slow down verses their own witnesses testimony that I drove it all the time and I didn't and I never saw flood so I think the commission was saying pick which story you want to you want to go with but you can't have it both ways. the Christa driven at a couple of times but there's no testimony that he knew it flooded that that you know there was any that he'd he'd driven it previously when it was completely submerged under water but then we have these these independent witnesses who they're not family members they're not friends they're not they're not experts are hired guns paid by any side to show up and testify. Drought one of them drove from Helena to this hearing it you know there there be on my subpoena power but they voluntarily came because they thought it was the right thing to do testifying to should because she lived in that area and she had to drive across it every day and she had a video that she had taken in this in the video was taken before the Chris Brown incident where she's essentially stranded at that intersection and can't go anywhere because she stopped and she said this is this is what happens to our road every time it rains and she testified that she actually wrote a letter to the highway department complaining about the flooding and they did nothing about it all that was before Chris brown died school bus driver who drove children to school. Testified that she complained she call the highway department complained about the flooding in that area she didn't feel safe taking a bus with children to school on that road the highway department didn't do anything about it the neighbors all complain that anytime they saw somebody working they would pull over and complain about the flooding along that road the highway department didn't do anything about it so that's the evidence that led to the commission determining ultimately that the highway department violated its responsibility and I realize it's a unique situation but this we litigated this case from. I believe that the record was February twenty nineteen we litigated it throughout COVID throughout twenty twenty throughout twenty twenty one the the Memphis bridge was a big issue while we were litigating this and I think we all know sort of the you know this is the same arguments were made in this is never happened before we we've inspected this before never seen it before well that wouldn't that that doesn't that that doesn't eliminate responsibility for the bridges cracked and thank goodness it was discovered before someone died this when it was discovered and reported and complained about but it wasn't fixed before someone died. Thank you Is there anyone here from the highway department. If you could there is if if you come forward please. Representative Shepherd I come back to you I just want to hear from the highway department first. If you would introduce yourself please good morning Amanda Andrew staff attorney with the department of transportation. Yes. Good morning Amanda Andrew staff attorney with the department of transportation thank you there may be other questions I have one so as anything here that you disagree with that the attorney just spoke to. Respectfully the department disagrees with a number of statements that were that were made this was a contested hearing and the order is is significant in detail However we take a different view of the evidence okay let me ask you a different questions are there any. the rehearse several facts to dispute the water levels. When he talked about ankle deep with the police and and you know one point our point zero two inches of rain is there anything you disagree with as far as the water levels. I believe the evidence showed that the rain event was more significant than has been represented And the water levels on the road that night we have video from the accident scene but no one from the department was aware that the accident happened so went out and actually took measurements so really all that we can say is to the water is a our our videos from the night or photographs from the night. And no no member at the emergency personnel testified as to the water levels or do you disagree with the number of reports that were made that there are multiple reports from various people about problems in the area. Yes Sir we disagree with that we didn't extensive review of our records from that district office and there was there was no record and we are our staff does keep record of of reports and complaints and we found no record during our extensive review that a report about that road had been had been made because of the fact that you don't have records and you don't keep those records. Is really almost a moot point if people are reporting it and they're not your staff or not reporting it you there and you're not keeping records is that what I heard you say no Sir I'm sorry we do keep records okay the very the districts have various maintenance offices in individual towns and they do keep keep records for you and you have no record of any complaints in that area no Sir okay right Representative Shepherd I'm gonna come back to you one more time and then we're gonna get a lot of questions there go ahead we'll I have one question and some other questions of the claimant's turning season come back to me later but just for clarity. This is a request for appropriation of the award why my understanding is the department did not appeal the decision of the claims commission to to this committee or to the claims Committee avail C. and so my car is in my correct about that. That's correct the decision was made to not appeal okay and then Mister chair I do have a few other questions but I'll wait till the end but I wanted to ask that we reckon later thank you. Representive calendar next. Thank you I think this is a question of the chair what's our standard of review here are we looking at the suspicions for clear error or what and how much are we supposed to be digging in here on this yes the second woman however respond to that. Representive Collins this particular decision was transmitted for review approval and then placement on an appropriation bill And that's all. Okay so review and approval and no further guidance as far as and that's fine that's what it is. Your question is yes I thank thank you. And representative McElroy you have a question okay McElroy C.. The representative Jane go a ride thank you Mr chairman read your name please call what is not is not on there. I got a question for the the attorney for the highway department. I'm I'm looking here says. We all denied any liability. And I'm wondering your during the claims committee of for the claims commission. The highway department ever. Try to get to a lower settlement or or we all flatly denying any liability at all. Tried. No we we did not have settlement discussions when after I got involved in the case I believe there might have been a very brief the. Maybe one email that I received I got to the case very late about two months before the hearing okay if I can follow up yes what was shows reasoning for not appealing this decision. Most most the people of the adamantly. Thank this is the wrong thing to do most most departments will appeal the decision what why did John I do that that decision was out. Side of the scope of my decision making I understand that but you do you don't have any knowledge why. Yeah okay. Thank you. And. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman. I read this thing twice last night I read the entire thirty eight pages or whatever from the claims commission and I apologize Mister chairman traffic a little bit late but I think I've heard most of the testimony so far There were numerous people including a. Are not employees and neighbors of the the. Location along the highway that talked about how that complaints had been made to the district office Bardot. Ma'am from the lady from the highway department did you. D. all dispute the things that these neighbors and other people stated about having my phone calls or whatever it seems that again reading this this server final report and an order from the claims commission that. there were I will paraphrase it complaints made orally phone calls whatever but that didn't necessarily filter up to the top and I'm not picking on anybody I'm just trying to establish do you dispute those facts that they didn't filter up to the top. That's actually very good and interesting questions and that those at the top don't handle these issues these matters are handled at the individual maintenance office level and our records. We do not have any records of these complaints were made because then you dispute that they were made because there's I'm not saying that it's got to come to little rock to be reviewed I'm talking about at the baby the district engineer and his or her staff level was that the case here because here you've got several citizens saying Hey we all complain we made a phone call we talk to someone is some cases they could say it was others I weren't so sure like anyone calling agency I couldn't tell you the people I've talked to an area agency and I talked to a lot of but to it at the point trying to get it is it appears from the record that are not knew about this problem at some level and that was very clear in the The the record this are you familiar with the function for forty one and four forty two all maintenance. These are basically the standard operating procedures that I understand or or set maybe nationally about Federal Highway Administration of how you're supposed to maintain certain roads and it appears from all this that they just really weren't met so if you're not following on rules and and the someone brought up the issue the of the of the bridges it when the crack in the bridge that you know someone missed that to that I mean obviously a much bigger thing but thank the lord no one lost life on that but this is a case where the the The functions the standard operating procedure even outlined by the federal government wasn't followed. And ultimately someone died now our mind. The committee that to This this Mr brown was deemed to have done what I believe about thirty two percent some figure like that of of the actual a percentage of of black and the remainder back to art I so I'm it's not like he was without total any involvement any blame at all and it's been stipulated by all parties correct me if I'm wrong that he did not have a seat belt and that's that's fine but to and again I just want to establish that. Are not knew about the situation at some level. Whether it got to the person that was the one that could truly make a decision to do proper maintenance on this section of road I won't even try to get that answer today but the fact is it the testimony of of several people unrelated people had nothing no dog in the fight so to speak. Were. Pointing at there's been this problem over and over again and we tried to tell and and so does the department. Dispute that fact. Does the Department dispute that people complained or that are not new. I just well I guess there's a disconnected people complained and art I didn't know whether their complaint but in this case I'm just saying did do you dispute that there were complaints made at I will say that the district level again if you said it wouldn't normally filter up to the top and should be handled at the at the local office level but the dispute that happened I again and Mister chairman I'm not trying to re retry the fact we're yeah okay clearly I responsibilities about awarding this money not trying to play appellate court to the claims commission I just want to establish a few things before we have to make a decision on that fact that thank you senator in our job you know they've already had their day in court yes mention the commission makes that argument we're we're kind of litigating the case again I understand that there is a necessary level for determining whether we're going to review or not people have a general question because it is a financial issue provokes they've already had the day in court they've already litigated all most all if not all of these questions were asking and that's not really our primary function Mr chairman if I could have just a brief moment of to close on this my whole point is in addition to our responsibility as a subcommittee of joint budget to fund this claim. We also have a responsibility to make sure that every agency that comes before us is doing their job properly and if there is a process to be followed that could create a problem because they didn't follow it and in this case the problem being that somebody died then we least need to get a straight answer from those agencies so we can if necessary craft legislation to to solve the problem so I know I'm bringing a little bit outside of the this subcommittee's jurisdiction but it is an important point for all of us collectively as legislators to to have that information so I'll stop it right there is I think I made the point but I sure appreciate you let me bring that up and I agree that's what we're line a lot of latitude and the questions. We're going to senator Wallace next. Thank you Mr this questions to the claims commission in over a hundred fifty years our citizens had a right to sue the state in about three sessions though. We took that right away in week steps to claims commission to to do that process for us so the citizens had a right to appeal to somebody. We really need to be careful this committee and I just back up what this chair said. We're not here to retry the case we're here to hear what the commission. Recommence. and I guess almost finished up with asking you do you agree. To me sir yes going. Yes I agree with the decision of the claims commission thank you thank you senator Wallace. Representative Shepherd will go to you next thank you Mr chairman I have just a couple questions and I have a motion so with the time of the accident was this at night or during the day. It for me who you direct your question like Senator it was dusk when when the accident happened police report I believe indicates This is that in order. Yeah I want to say seven thirty but I don't that's when the police officer have. This is. It was February. March I'm sorry March. In any a police stated that the officers on the roadway the water was over their ankles that's correct on the roadway. That's correct we have we have video we can show you it's it's. It's funneling down it's for it It there you can actually see current in the water going north to south so then my final question is. All of this at all this in the legislature we get complaints about state highways all over the state and I mean you can imagine that whether it's You know I did sh an intersection a guard rail assigned there we get all kinds of complaints and so I guess I come back to the question earlier and I just would would yes can I ask it again. When we make these complaints the highway department. We can make them repeatedly and they're probably a complaints all over the state. So what distinguishes this case from other cases that are bound to happen and it happened in the past and I know that some open ended questions but I I'd. And I do have a motion it at the proper time but I'd like to hear again what what you believe distinguishes this from you know many other cases I mean let's face it an example we get complaints there's probably everyone of us that there would be intersections in our districts across the state that folks believe are dangerous and that things have been said the highway department so are we going to be responsible is it gonna be your contention that were responsible then for every every you know accident that occurred at those intersections going forward so I'd like to hear how you distinguish distinguish that and again I have a motion to property. Probably the best way I could answer that is to describe how I evaluate cases I I'm primarily a plaintiff's attorney I represent people who have been who have been injured and then try to redress their claims in court in this this one because the sovereign immunity through the claims commission And just to just to be candid and I've told the Browns this I didn't want this case early on I did it I really didn't when I first heard the facts that as they were presented to me I had the same reaction that it's a it's a flooded road in Phillips County and you've got a young nineteen year old who of flat rolled the vehicle and died I thought you know there's probably gonna be some comparative fault on what Chris did and then there's just no there's no uniqueness to the situation and so I I did I didn't initially think I was going to take the case I met with the Browns and in addition to realizing what fine people they are and what this meant to them I kept listening to them and everything they said handout in terms of the just the sheer volume you can you can go up and down that road and talk to anybody who is either coming weeks we had a a gentleman who works the farm by lease for somebody else who would just stop on the roadway and tell you I've been complaining about that to every highway department worker that comes here about that flooding for years it just became overwhelming at some point that everybody in this community knew about this and complained about it I've never seen a case before somebody miss Lacey I appreciated I appreciate the question but folks we are re litigating the case and that has already been through the claims commission so you know to ask Mr lazy to make a determination on this I don't The chair doesn't think that's relevant to what this claims commission's job is a talk these questions already been asked I think members of if we want to know we need to go to the claims commission I don't think that's the purpose of Mr Lacey to make the determination of when he's going to go to court the server you have a question our response To address bigger shepherds question also I would I would I would point to subcommittee to paragraph one eighty if the commission's order because in that particular paragraph the commission applied the same roadway defects standard that it utilizes and potholes and other road way defect cases to this that whether or not the respondent knew or should have known about this in this case the flooding problem that being the right way detract and at the end of that paragraph the commission says the claims commission finds that the standard that responding consistently argue should apply to respondent in claims for potholes or other hazardous road conditions should apply to the instant claim as well as such were responded had prior knowledge of hazardous road condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable amount of time respondent is liable for the damages that occur from that condition. To the extent that in an obviously this this trial lasted outlaw of the claims commission case last and how long it was a long one day hearing okay so we've already litigated this so members please let's keep our questions understanding that we've already had the trial and attorneys on both sides presented are not presented and they did not contest so that's where we are. Representative hi Shepherd you're recognized I'm sorry representative lance you're recognized I had just one question for the highway department. The procedure the standard operating procedure when a complaint is received at the district office I'd like a copy of that please. Like to know what your practice is when you receive a phone call about a complaint on the road. What happens at that point is there any closure at all so it I would like to see that practice please. Thank you. If you will provide that to the chair and we will get that information to all the members. Okay. Representive Shepherd you're recognized I'm I have a motion. The motion if well first I'm surprised with the chair would cut short in answer to a question from a member I understand that this is been litigated but the process is that still has to come before this committee on the budget committee for appropriation and that is the expenditure of state funds of the people of Arkansas yeah I understand it so I think that that if we want to ask a question is relevant I think it should be answered I appreciate Mister Lacey answering that in my motion is particularly in light of the fact the department did not appeal I would move that we approve the award. Thank you in response to my cutting Mr Lacy's comments off I guess we have a disagreement there you ask Mr Lacey what his response was in at what level he has I don't think that's within the scope of what we're trying to do we have a motion to approve a second all in favor say aye. All opposed. Your the motion is passed. Thank you. Thank you. This can go ahead. The next claim is claim number two three zero five five one J. A. rigs tractor company versus the University of Arkansas System claimants sought thirty five thousand twenty nine dollars and forty nine cents and repair costs to a back hoe which was allegedly damaged while rented by the University of Arkansas System respondent answered admitting liability in full the claims commission unanimously allowed the claim in that amount and transmitted the claim for review approval in placement on an appropriation bill. Members anyone have a question. Seeing no questions do I have a motion to approve this item. And second. Okay we have a second all in favor say aye. Opposed. This motion is approved. The next claim its claim number two one one three zero zero Chad moreover since the Arkansas department of parks and tourism claimants sought sixty thousand dollars in damages related to injury sustained in an incident where claimant fell in the shower stall of the bathhouse and devil's den state park specifically claimant alleged that when he sat on the seat in the shower stall the seat came out of the wall pending his knees to the ground and slamming his face into the wall some of claimant's medical expenses were covered by the VA however he sought compensation for the uncovered expenses as well as pain and suffering the department of parks and tourism denied liability following a hearing the claims commission found that the department was negligent in its duty to maintain its from Mrs in a reasonably safe condition for invitees the claims commission awarded claimant a total of thirty thousand dollars compartment rise to seven thousand five hundred dollars for medical bills and twenty two thousand five hundred dollars for pain and suffering neither party appeal the claims commission's decision the Commission transmitted the claim for review approval and placed an order preparation bill. The server you have any comments now at this time but I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions members. Representative Jane you're recognized anybody reports and tourism. Do you have anyone parks and tourism here. If you would please introduce yourselves. Jeff king deputy director of division of state parks. Marty route director legislative affairs for parturition duration. Member representative junior question I am retirement. We all agree with this finding it did you no challenge it are you okay with that. We did not elect to appeal the decision and so we're we're willing to accept the the what's before by the claims commission and the response so you'll feel like your. In the collect on this rest bathroom. We know that we had some some maintenance records and issues that needed to be addressed at our level and we did have a level of a some level of fault in the in the incident and that's why we did not appeal the decision okay thank you Mr chairman thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing and we have a motion to approve this item. Got a motion the second. A second all in favor say aye. Proposed. This motion is approved. We're going to Adam D. negotiated settlements Mr Desikan you provide that information. This is claim number two two one two three six Judy wages versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimant sought unspecified amount of damages for injury sustained during an automobile accident with the vehicle owned by are not claimant allege that she sustained personal injury when the state vehicle failed to negotiate a right curve crossed the center line of highway one oh one and eventually collided with the front passenger side of her vehicle or not does not did not dispute liability the parties entered into a negotiated settlement agreement settling the claim for twenty thousand dollars the claims commission approved the settlement and referred it for review approval and placement on an appropriation bill. Mr really having comments yes Sir happy to take any questions that. Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman is anyone still here for formar dot. If you would introduce yourself then representative Johnson you're recognized your or senator Johnson you're recognized for your question. Injures one I'm sorry ma'am go ahead I'm talking overseas sorry Senator Amanda Andrew staff attorney with the department of transportation again I apologize for Sanders a cat jumped the gun on it Centers I read. Would you hit your button again some out what are. And you're recognized thank you of. Is entered I read in here somewhere that to this individual did not have This vehicle to not have insurance yeah I read that correctly. The claimant's vehicle. This was a yes the now the response call that the vehicle didn't have that. By law the Department vehicles are not insured. Okay. Well I did not know that but I figure there's it's because of you have sovereign immunity and you also have a it will call it self insurance in is that is that the reason for that. There was another thing in there and I hate scapes me now about the the individuals Who was driving Mr. I believe his name is I'll be checks see um behind a is that the individual That there was something about his last the situation all that but to me it says at the time of the collision defendant and are that did not have any automobile insurance provided would provide for the plans that's simply state chapter of the claims commission so I did not know the child didn't carry outside insurance but I can understand why so so I guess that answers all my questions thank you Mr thank you senator members any other questions. Mister read you have anything. On any question whether some by clicking a. Sometimes the screen goes black any questions members. Sing nine. Mr really have any comments Nassar. We have a motion to negotiate on this negotiated settlement. Motion. Motion and a second senator Johnson all in favor say aye. Motion is proved. A day to. this claim number one nine zero seven two seven Charles McRaven and Linda McRaven versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimants sought three million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars or injury sustained when Mr McRaven slipped and fell on the wet floor of the men's room at a rest stop maintained by our dot claimant's alleged that a water pipe was broken at the rest stop and spilling water all over the men's room claimant's further alleged that dangerous condition was created because the reason there were no warning signs posted and there were no onsite employees warning individuals of the condition claimant's alleged that Mr McRaven broke his hip in several places sustaining severe injury to his shoulder ribs and hit his head on the floor causing severe headaches since then claimant's alleged that Mr McRaven continue treatment with various doctors to manage his pain and increases mobility so that he could return to the level of activity had prior to the fall are not denied liability following discovery the parties entered into a negotiated settlement agreement settling the claim for a hundred and forty thousand dollars the claims commission approved the settlement and referred for review approval and placement on an appropriation bill. Mr B. could you describe referred to the Committee I know we have some new members what a negotiated settlement process is well the commission becomes involved when the parties notify the claims commission usually made else and many non say we've we've come to an agreement as to the amount of damages that the claimant incurred or suffered and the parties have agreed as to the amount that the agency is going to pay to the claimant The way that the claims commission process works at that is that those settlement agreements which is I know that documenting else y'all's packet this particular run was titled a settlement release pro rata discharge an indemnity agreement And when that estimate when that is filed with the claims commission then the claims commission reviews that and in this case approved it and because it was over fifteen thousand dollars it gets sent over here for review approval on yes Sir claims commission is acting on behalf of the legislature in the state correct that language in on our behalf the claims commission is taking the position that this that the settlement agreement is proper and should be paid and is asking the subcommittee for that approval yes Sir okay thank you. Representative Springer. I have a question sure or you're recognized thank you Mr I know this in this particular claim that there's no submission of any kind of bills or anything of that nature as to the injuries and that sort of thing. As to how you arrived at the hundred and forty thousand dollars so that parties have to the hundred forty thousand dollars and in this case that I believe I'm trying to look and see how much the claim that was originally asking for an offense and well I see the complete. What follows Mr most complaints ask for more than you may ask for the world so I'm just trying to determine how they arrive at the settlement amount. So that that's that's the part process to the Commission is not party to we we find out about it once the parties have come to an agreement. So there's no document if I understand the question there's no document that outlines the detail of what's what part of settlement is genitive and what part is our care there's no document to that effect thank you Mr chair that is correct. So there's no documented that does that well Sir I would note that the that the damages that were sought by the claim and I think the answer is we there were not medical bills Whether or not they were submitted I'll have to go back and look and see whether they're submitted their discovery but but the claimant was seeking. Many different types of damages including pain and suffering and mental anguish the value of earnings are so lost wages visible result of his injuries loss of consortium there ones that would not be quantifiable and paper form there's no documented in that answers the question It rex that time isn't there just your answer is no there's no doctor there's no documentation as to how they have that that in the file. No thank you Representative Collins you're recognized. It's just in reference to represents question I believe that there was some documents there remitted from our packet because of privacy concerns medical records that is that may be. Addressing her questions. Thank you. Members any other questions Senator Johnson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman this is represent Collins touched on what I was saying there were they seem to be stipulation of all parties amongst the trip that to the gentleman Mr Craven had to the hospitals and and all that so I'm just presuming that because of that they all agreed whatever those amounts were and did not include the the details in the record to submit to the claims commissions that pretty accurate. Well typically the parties will engaging discovery before it goes to hearing or until the parties settled where they're exchanging a lot of documents I am But the claims commission doesn't always have does not have those because everyone agreed to those facts is that more listed in this case the parties came to an agreement okay thank you thank you Mr. Springer you're recognized thank you Mr idled belabor the point I understand the the that there was sent to my house I'm just saying that nothing was submitted to show the amounts I was not asking for a personal documentation regarding in the other cases there was a submission of dollar amounts and that sort of thing in this I did not see that amount amount on bills in current wage loss that sort of thing so that's what I'm getting to not to actually see that that the what will submit with respect to the injuries but to just know what amount was being claimed thank you thank you Mr chair maker for ballot questions I guess Mister read. On the settlements that is that normally available so in this case I was looking because what I brought ever with me was the complainants health but not all the supporting documentation and I'm happy to to confirm that once I get back to my hard copy file into if you would please get that to the chair and then we will assure that remembers I think if we're going to have the settlements that good for us to have knowledge about whether or not we're can anticipate that the future not yes Sir okay thank you members any other questions. We have a motion. Motion I have a second all in favor say aye. Opposed. And this is approved. ordered the three. This is claim number sixteen dash zero two two two dash CC Anthony Addison versus the Arkansas department of transportation claimant sought damages in the amount of two million dollars which allegedly arose from a collision with a dump truck owned by are not claimant alleges of the dump truck pulled into claimant's lane of traffic on highway fifteen causing a collision between the two vehicles and resulting in total loss of Addis vehicle claiming alleged that he suffered injuries to his mouth back lungs ribs face and abdomen had arms fingers and pelvis are not denied liability affirmatively stating that the driver of claimant's vehicle negligently attempted to pass the dump truck on the right side shoulder of the road as a dump truck was turning right to exit the highway following discovery and a period of the bands the parties entered into a settlement agreement settling the claim for two hundred thousand dollars the claims commission approved the settlement and referred for review approval in placement on an appropriation bill. Mr reed you have any questions I'm sorry the comment nicer but I'm happy to take any questions yes tell tell us about the documentation that details how the settlement was reached if we have anything so we're in the same position as we are make robin is that. And this one was set for hearing and on the eve of hearing I receive notification that the parties to come to an agreement and so Following that we received the settlement agreement that the details about how the parties have at the settlement amount the commission was does not have that information we are not party to the settlement discussions and as far as the supporting documents for this claim and what was submitted throughout discovery I'm happy to confirm that as well and to provide that to adjust yours to desert activity keep that information or do they ask for that information you know miss Sanders may be able to shed some more light on all but I don't I don't know. I wait till someone calls are not up to ask that question but representative Springer you're recognized thank you Mr same day and same song. If you get that information for sensor. Anyone like to hear from our to. You push a button. Representive Eubanks. Okay representive Eubanks yeah I'd like to hear are not come up and get your their comments on this yeah the guy if you will come up and. I have a few questions. If you would introduce yourself. Good morning Amanda Andrew staff attorney with the department of transportation and. Representative you back to your hit your button again I'm sorry some times it just kicks off. You're recognized for a question. Can you explain to me how you have that this amount. is that are you privy to that information or were you not part of this. Case either. Oh no all of these are my cases It was based on a review of the evidence and an assessment of our what we thought could be our liability. The majority of at the damages in this case and work because the claimant could no longer work. Okay thank you. So it sounds like the. Now there's a real interest in how are not in the goshi Asians reached the settlement agreement where there is lots of work injury opportunity damages do you all not deal negotiate that is a part of your negotiation. That would be part of the internal discussions with our chief counsel so I would take the information that's gathered during discovery take that to our chief counsel and say this is what the claims commission could find as far as our percentage of liability so we look at the overall damages and then we we quantify and then the graven matter for example it was lost wages and this situation basically lost wages from your you do have the detail if we requested that information we were talking this survey I guess you'd be going to art I'd say give us a break down so you have that information on all three of these. We have the information gathered in discovery and then it's an assessment analysis based on on the information we gathered in discovery this could you have that information available to the committee I think we have people like myself have not been a part of the process I'm interested as is represented Springer I'm sure others how those negotiated settlements have that proportionally so if you get that for all three of these we'd appreciate it I just representative Gazaway you're recognized I'm quite a bit taller than represent Gazaway business representative Wardlaw. My question for the highway department is it looks like we have multiple of these where the there were drivers from the highway department that were negligent of D. one and D. three or both are vehicle state vehicles that hit someone else what what is done to prevent this going forward and what is done to the employees of the highway department once this happens so what are you guys doing in training what are you guys doing going forward and how are you addressing stopping this from from happening. Thank you for that question and I I would like to do some research and reach out to the people who are responsible so so let me tell you this next time you come to one of our committees let's bring the answers are bring somebody from the department that can answer questions I mean it's kind of ridiculous that we're proving this kind of money in here and we can't answer any other questions. So. I do wanna know the sensor I do want you to get it to the committee get it to the staff. But let's let's bring the right people from the department to make sure we can answer the questions are being asked in the committee. Thank you Richard thank you representative thank you for that clearly that the legislature's interested may break down on these special needs negotiated settlements people want the detail on our side of how we achieve that. I think that's what I've heard from several people are very. Do you have a wreck a question response about that. Are we clear I guess is the question I'm asking yes okay thank you members any other questions. The man do we have a motion. I have a motion second. I have a second all in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion is approved. That is. Saying no further business before the commission this committee adjourned.