ALC-Claims Review/Litigation Reports Oversight
Video
Transcript
30 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 14
1:30
There's a lot to get on the committee, but there's more people
to know what the heck's going to learn. We'll call this meeting to order.
Good afternoon, members. We'll start today's meeting with the litigation oversight portion of the agenda and then proceed with the claims review. Item B is the litigation oversight.
Do we have someone from the department? University of Arkansas. We're not doing B1 because they asked for it to be pulled until next month. So we'll be doing B2. Please introduce
yourself to the record, and then you may begin. Good afternoon.
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
2:37
My name is Sherry Robinson. I'm Senior Associate General Counsel for the University of Arkansas
Amber Schubert
Unverified
2:44
System. Good afternoon. I'm Amber Schubert, and I am Associate General Counsel for the University
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
2:52
of Arkansas System. You may begin. Okay. I actually have item 2A, C, and D, so taking to A, Alicia Graham. Ms. Graham is an African-American who brings a lawsuit under Title
Speaker 32
3:03
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was subjected to discriminatory practices while she was
employed at UAMS and retaliated against after reporting discrimination. Ms. Graham alleges that her supervisor changed her job duties and disciplined her for not following protocols on inputting patient information for clinical trials. Ms. Graham also alleged that she applied for several promotions that were filled with less qualified applicants. Ms. Graham was ultimately terminated from UAMS for violations of UAMS policy and federal law applicable to document retention in clinical trials,
which can have significant consequences for the university. After a view of the complaint and relevant documents from the department the board filed an answer denying the allegations discovery in the case has not yet begun but we anticipate a dispositive motion deadline in may of 2026 a trial date later that year if the motion is denied and i'll do my best to answer any questions that i can that the committee have may have keeping in mind that it is a pending litigation matter
are there any questions oh uh senator payton
thank you madam chair uh so it says that the defendant filed an answer on june 23rd Are we privy to read that answer? I don't see it included here
Speaker 32
4:46
in the docs. The answer is a matter of public record on the federal judiciary site,
but I'm happy to provide a copy of the answer through our Governmental Affairs Office if you would like
it. I just think it's pertinent when we see the original complaint and the original response that we'd see any other, I think you call them derogatories or whatever, interogatories I think well
Speaker 32
5:10
that's discovery is interogatories and requests for production the answer is the only thing that's been filed right now by the University okay and and I honestly do not know what you guys have in your
packet I fill out a report that gets here and then somebody asked me to
attend so well this is something kind of new to this committee to review these cases while they're pending but I think if we're gonna be expected to have oversight in these cases that we should know what the arguments are that's all thank you senator hammer you're
recognized I will as soon as that there you go sir okay thank you madam
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:54
chair over here to your left over here in the back row so my
question is just help me understand why is this even before us if it's still in litigation and rendering any decision before the litigation is complete it's just a litigation report it's
just the report yes sir okay thank you
are there any other questions seeing no other questions do I have a motion to review do I have a second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed no it carries motion carries
and you're going to do C
Amber Schubert
Unverified
6:42
next OB I'm happy to do B yes item B is Megan Hardy versus the board of trustees of the University of Arkansas Megan Hardy is a former employee of the University of arkansas at pine bluff she filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination under title seven she was terminated in connection with her response to a shooting that happened on campus at pine bluff last year that this case actually has already been dismissed i we filed a motion
to dismiss on behalf of the defendant and the federal court agreed that she had failed to state a claim, and so that
case has already been dismissed. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to review? Second. All in favor say
aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion is passed. C. All right. Thank you, Madam
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
7:34
Chair. So C and D are interesting. They actually were filed at the same time
Speaker 32
7:38
and have very, very, very similar facts and claims. I don't know if you want me to
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
7:44
talk about them then together maybe if that would be
Speaker 32
7:50
easier? I have to do a motion after each one. Okay, not a problem. Charlene Jimenez versus Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. Ms. Jimenez is Hispanic and brings her lawsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution alleging she was unfairly dismissed as a student in the UAMS nurse anesthetist program based on her ethnicity. She was terminated from the program for multiple issues that were inconsistent with professional
responsibility and accountability under the UAMS program standards, scholastic non-cognitive performance standards, and AANA code of ethics. Those are specific to the nurse anesthetist program. After a view of the complaint and relevant documents, UAMS filed a, or excuse me, the board filed an answer denying the allegations. Discovery has not yet begun, but we anticipate a dispositive motion deadline in May of 2026, a trial date later in that year if the dispositive motion is not granted.
Again, I'll try to answer any questions that the committee may have given the ongoing nature of the litigation. Senator
Payton, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to
point out again, we have that the defendant, I guess, filed an answer on August 5th, or it says by August 5th, and we don't have that in our file to know what that answer was.
Speaker 32
9:23
And yes, we have filed an answer in both the Jimenez and the Trevino cases, and I'm happy to provide those to the committee through our governmental affairs. And if you'd send that to staff and
forward it to us, I appreciate it. Okay. Are
there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, do
I have a motion to review? I've got
a motion to review. Second, any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
9:53
Motion carries. Moving down to D. Okay,
Speaker 32
9:59
that is Alfredo Trevino versus Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. He has an identical fact pattern and claims raised against UAMS that Ms. Jimenez does. He was also dismissed for multiple issues that were inconsistent with professional responsibility and accountability under UAMS program standards, the scholastic non-cognitive performance standards, and AANA code of ethics.
Again, we have reviewed the complaint, filed an answer denying the allegations. discovery has not yet begun but we anticipate a dispositive motion deadline of march 2026 a trial date later in 2026 should the motion be denied and i'll do my best to answer any questions and we'll provide a copy of that answer as well 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 oppose no motion
carries. Thank you for being here. Moving down to item C. Next on the agenda is C1, which contains four 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. Good
Speaker 72
11:22
afternoon. Alicia Austin-Smith, I'm Chief Counsel for Revenue at DFA. Brad Young
Speaker 73
11:26
with the Office of Revenue Legal Counsel.
Speaker 72
11:29
You may begin. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. We actually have four settlements that we're asking for review and approval today, so we'll take them one by one. The first is Hudson v. Tyson Foods. This was a corporation income tax refund case. It's kind of rather complicated. It involves the claiming of tax credits beyond the statute of limitations. So initially, Tyson was seeking a refund for tax year 2016 of $1.8 million plus interest. And for 2017 of $1 million plus interest, the parties have been in litigation for several years
and have reached a settlement now that would address both those two years and some additional years, which would be for the benefit of both parties to get all of that resolved. so for 2016 instead of the 1.8 million claimed tyson would be awarded 1.5 million plus the appropriate amount of interest and for 2017 instead of 1 million it would be 100,000 plus the appropriate amount of interest so right now the exposure on the refund claims is about 6 million and so the settlement would be a payout of 2.5 and we would ask we're happy to answer any
questions are there any questions seeing no questions i'm
sorry senator payton you're recognized thank you madam chair i was holding back see if somebody else can ask a question uh this actually will apply to more than one of these cases so we can get this out of the way but uh how do we figure the interest what interest rate and how often is it compounded compounding because nine hundred thousand dollars on 1.5 correction seems like a inordinate amount
Speaker 77
13:13
of interest it is 10 percent and compounded annually or monthly or what
Speaker 73
13:20
that's 10 percent is the statutory rate and i believe it's compounded annually annually i'm looking to my boss for confirmation here yes
Speaker 73
13:30
particular settlement part of what was negotiated was the date that the interest would cut off and so rather than
the interest for both of these tax periods going up to the current date we negotiated with the other side some earlier dates so it limited the state's exposure to interest somewhat right and we did get a firm answer on
annually yes okay thank you thank you madam chair are there
any other questions seeing no questions do i have a motion do i have a second all
uh any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye opposed no motion passes right down to b thank you ma'am
Speaker 72
14:12
thank you yes we are now at c1b milam oil our office of field audit issues sales and use tax assessments for tax years 2019 and 2020. The taxpayer did not file a petition with the Tax Appeals Commission, so went straight to circuit court to oppose the assessments. The litigation involves the exception for initial installation and construction. During the litigation, the taxpayer provided documents for the first time that the department hadn't received. And so because of those documents, because of the examples we received, we were able to concede 70% of the
construction were involved in and the initial installation exception was applicable so the tax assessment would be reduced by that 70 percent and the interest would be reduced accordingly so you're asking for approval are there any questions representative eves
you're recognized just a quick quick question was it their choice not to
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
15:02
go to the tax appeals commission and go straight to circuit court i wouldn't be able to speak
Speaker 72
15:08
for that but i think timely this representative
Speaker 88
15:12
the procedural history here was i believe the case was filed if i recall right
Speaker 73
15:19
first with the tax appeals commission but it was while the office of hearings and appeals still had jurisdiction and so the tax appeals commission dismissed the case as not being filed properly thanks are
there any other questions seeing no other questions do i have a motion i've got a motion and i've got a second any discussion all in favor say i oppose no
Speaker 72
15:48
motion is passed c one c yes thank you this is southwestern energy this is a natural natural gas
severance tax case the plaintiff filed a series of refund requests based on deductions that the plaintiff claimed for its marketing cost the department denied the request in part and this went before the prior Office of Hearings and Appeals. The ALJ sustained the refund claim denials in the plaintiff filed litigation in circuit court. Ultimately, the plaintiff sought refunds in the total amount of about $1.2 million plus interest. The parties were actually able to mediate this case and were able to come, and I will say it was $1.2 million plus interest,
and at that time the interest was approximately $1 million, so $2.2. The parties were able to mediate the case and a settlement was reached which would pay out $850,000, subject
to your approval. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to review? Do I have a second? Are there any discussions on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say I. Opposed no. The motion is carried. C1D. This
Speaker 72
16:57
is the final case. This is Tokusin versus DFA.
This involves sales and use tax assessments for tax years 2016 through 2021. The Tokusin appealed the several of the years to the former office of hearings and appeals but did not prevail and then several of the other years were filed straight in circuit court. It involves the manufacturing exemption. There are several items involved in the litigation that could be subject show a different interpretation so that was the basis of the lawsuit um the parties have negotiated a potential settlement and this one would result in a waiver of zero percent of the tax but 75 percent of the interest that was assessed and we are asking for your approval are there any
questions seeing no questions do i have a motion to review motion and a second any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye
much thank you Up next is C2, which contains two proposed litigation settlements from the University of Arkansas System. Will someone from that
agency come? Introduce yourself for the record again, and then you may begin.
Amber Schubert
Unverified
18:06
Thank you. Again, my name is Amber Schubert, and I am an Associate General Counsel with the University of Arkansas System. C2A is Amber Reich versus the University of Arkansas. Amber Reich is a former employee. She was a custodial worker at the University of Arkansas. After her termination, she raised some allegations with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So neither of these lawsuits or neither of these claims actually ever got to a lawsuit. They were both mediated through the EEOC's mediation process before getting to an actual lawsuit.
So Amber Reich alleged that her supervisor, during the short term of her employment, had harassed her in violation of Title VII and the ADA. And so after going through the mediation process, we were able to reach an agreement to release all of her claims so that she would not file suit for the amount of $4,000. I'm happy to answer any questions
about that. Are there any questions? Senator Payton,
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So was eligibility for rehire addressed in the settlement?
Speaker 99
19:16
That is a good question. I'm not entirely sure. I don't think I have that document. Actually, if you
Amber Schubert
Unverified
19:21
would give me a second, I can get with you after. I bet I do have that in my... Well, I guess we can't change it
now, but, I mean, it should be part of the settlement. Sometimes it's part of the
Amber Schubert
Unverified
19:31
settlement. Do you mean that we would mark them in eligible? It should be addressed. Yes, it is addressed. I do not know whether it was addressed with her agreeing not to reapply or not. Okay, thank you. But it is addressed, yes. Okay, thank you. Representative makes you recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
19:46
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm over here to your right. Was there any investigation done to see if the complaint was actually legitimate or not? There was
Amber Schubert
Unverified
19:55
an investigation done. I can tell you that the supervisor no longer works there. I'm sorry I omitted that fact. Okay, all right,
thank you. Are there any other questions? seeing no other questions
do i have a motion to review and a second any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye opposed no motion passes to b
Amber Schubert
Unverified
20:20
yes ma'am thank you the next matter is dr
sarah rodriguez versus the university of arkansas as i mentioned this one was also settled through the eeoc's mediation process dr rodriguez is a former tenure track faculty member at the university of Arkansas who filed an EEOC charge after she failed to achieve tenure, which means that her employment ended because she applied for tenure and was not given tenure. She alleged discrimination and primarily her claim involved whether or not she was far enough along in the publication of a
book. Faculty members are required to engage in sufficient scholarship, teaching, and service. She was found deficient in all three areas by the committees that looked at her application, especially about the publication of her book. However, she had made some progress on the publication of her book, and so there was some liability there. We felt there was some exposure if we had to litigate this all the way through discovery and potentially pay attorney's fees at the end of a trial. So that case was settled for $34,000, which includes a release of all her claims, a release of all her attorney's fees.
That represents approximately half a year's salary for her.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Are there any questions? Senator Dotson, you're recognized. Thank
you, Madam Chair. so if I'm understanding correctly the allegation was a it was based she was passed over for
10-year promotion I'm already I'm sorry I've been green light there um
uh and she says it was due to race she alleged yes
Amber Schubert
Unverified
22:10
she alleged that it was due to her race and her sex she included both yeah essentially she had been given more time than anybody ever had to achieve their scholarship requirements and she said well I'm at an advanced enough stage of publication that I think you should consider this as having met my scholarship requirement and she pointed to some other individuals who she believed were no further along at the point they
were granted tenure but this is where it got really factually specific and this is why we agreed to mediate to a settlement. The reality is Dr. Rodriguez had been given many years where she was allowed to not teach, to be excluded from her teaching and other obligations so that she could focus solely on her publication and she didn't make significant progress during that time. And so we felt... So she didn't qualify for... She did not. So the way tenure is awarded is
through a committee the tenure track faculty member applies and they say here's how I've met my teaching scholarship and service obligations and then it goes through several layers up through the chancellor and ultimately the president and all but one of those layers of appeals agreed that she did not meet the rigorous requirements. So
she didn't meet the the requirements and at the end of it was terminated due to
Amber Schubert
Unverified
23:34
that? That's exactly right if you don't achieve tenure if you aren't awarded tenure during a specific period of time, it is part of your appointment that you are no
longer employed. You're terminated for failing to achieve tenure. So I'm just, why $34,000 then for a settlement on someone who didn't meet the requirements?
Amber Schubert
Unverified
23:57
Right. And that's where I was saying that there was one of the five or so layers of appeal that agreed with her and that would have recommended her for tenure the department did not recommend her the college did not recommend her but she appealed to a faculty appeals committee and they said they would recommend giving her
tenure that was all of that information was sent to the chancellor and the provost who agreed that her tenure should be denied went to the president and the president agreed but so because there was the negative fact of there being one step along the way where somebody thought that maybe she was had met her obligations for tenure that was a risk factor the other risk factor was again just this question that sort of um can be a little subjective about whether or not she was far enough along at an advanced enough stage of publication of her book and that it was her book
was really the determining factor of whether or not she had met the scholarship she um had done some other small publication not as much as other people who are typically awarded tenure had so those two factors we felt like gave some risk to us in proceeding to a lawsuit and of course at the
end of a lawsuit you have even more attorney's fees than we went on the front and this item
is for a review so we've you've already done this we're just seeing what's happened already well
Amber Schubert
Unverified
25:27
no so these are a little different than the item one reviews you all actually do have to approve our settlements and so the way we write those settlement agreements is to factor in your approval they're all conditioned on the approval of this body okay thank
Chair
Unverified
25:44
you representative make sure recognize for a question
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:48
thank you madam chair so um sounds like she was given plenty of opportunities and you said that there was time where she wasn't teaching to work on her book assuming she got the book finished is that something she would sell would it belong to
the university then or would she be profiting from this
Amber Schubert
Unverified
26:05
book herself my understanding is it's a little of both okay that both the faculty member as
well as the university have an interest in those
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:15
publications okay and so just just in summary we have an employee who tried to get tenure
was denied tenure we gave her ample opportunity to get tenure still didn't get tenure was fired and now so what we're what we're doing is we're going to reward her thirty four thousand dollars and at least from where i'm sitting i understand you're trying to save a lot
of headache going forward but does this not set a bad precedent going forward so everybody else that's in the same situation knows that hey if I threaten to sue that the state's going to give me tens of thousands of dollars you see how I absolutely
Amber Schubert
Unverified
26:58
do and as one of our our litigators I am painfully sensitive to that subject I can tell you that we do not settle cases easily I mean as you heard one that I just reported on this morning I got dismissed before we even brought
it here this morning. So we do aggressively defend our lawsuits, but we also have to be fiscally responsible. And so when we see a case where we go before an EEOC mediator who's sort of in the middle, hearing both sides, hearing what her counsel has to say, with this one, we felt like there were some risks. I mean, $34,000 being half of a tenure-track faculty member's salary doesn't really represent a super high payout for what we could have been looking at at the end of a jury trial okay my concern is is that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:43
we're going to open the floodgate to a lot more of these thirty
four thousand dollars and then eventually it will start to will start to add up sure i
Speaker 98
27:52
hear you thank you for that senator payton you're recognized thank you
madam chair so in the proposed settlement is she going to continue employment with the university or not no her
Amber Schubert
Unverified
28:03
her employment was terminated when she's going to be required to finish the book um that's not a matter of our concern anymore yeah that's so that would be not up to her it's
outside of our control so how long did the university pay her to work on the book and nothing
Amber Schubert
Unverified
28:21
else i think so it's not unusual for
tenure track faculty members to be given one year to sort of go research and devote their efforts to their book or to their publication she was given a second opportunity to do that and so there was one extra year um so we've paid her 140,000 for nothing
for two years for nothing i i honestly didn't litigate this one and so i think
Amber Schubert
Unverified
28:43
you may have reached the limits of my knowledge as to her pay and things like that well you said 34,000 was half a year that's what i have 70,000
a year basically yeah that's correct that is my understanding um based on what i have been told by the people who handled the case, and as I said, it's not unusual for them to have at least one year focused on research during their tenure, while they're working on obtaining tenure. Thank you. Representative Shepard. Thank
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:22
you, Madam Chair. You touched on some of the things I was going to ask about, and I appreciate the fact that
You've indicated that the university does aggressively defend these. It appears to me, was this still, what was the procedural status? Was this still pending before the EEOC, which is a prerequisite to ultimately filing suit? That is correct.
And the EEOC reached out and asked if we
Amber Schubert
Unverified
29:45
would be willing to engage in mediation. And so this was settled through the EEOC's mediation process. And do you know, just
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:52
for the benefit of the committee, and I certainly can understand that there are times where you have to,
the best course is to go ahead and settle for a lot of reasons. But do you have any idea on what the potential damages could be had it progressed either for a determination by the EEOC or should she have been given her right to sue and filed in federal
district court? Well, in addition to the compensatory damages, which would
Amber Schubert
Unverified
30:18
be back wages, things like that, and, of course, it could take us years to get to an actual trial. And so by the time we got to trial, she had been out several years of wages.
In addition, she'd be entitled to some punitive damages, and she would certainly be entitled to attorney's fees. And it's really the attorney's fees. We've talked a little bit about the discovery process here. This would have involved numerous depositions. We'd have to pay for the transcripts along the way. I mean, it would have
been well into the six figures if we had lost this on
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
30:53
a jury trial. And then one final question, just as an aside. how often does the Faculty Appeals Committee actually reject the appeal of tenure?
Basically, in this instance, what you've told us is that everybody in that process, except for the Faculty Review Committee, rejected her application or the review for her for tenure and is it just seems a bit for purposes of of all faculty reviews it seems like there's probably a high degree of um sympathy
Speaker 140
31:29
towards granting tenure i i don't have the specific
Amber Schubert
Unverified
31:36
numbers on that i can tell you that the people below the faculty appeals committee who recommended denial are the people who were in her department the people who saw what she did so by the time it it gets to the faculty appeals committee you you probably do have a little less knowledge about that specific situation but we can certainly get you information if you would like on how
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
32:01
and obviously we appreciate the the job that the faculty does but just it's it stands out in this case where at every step in the process she had been unsuccessful except for one step that involves
the faculty review piece. So thank you for your
Chair
Unverified
32:18
answers. Thank you. Representative Eves, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
32:21
you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. In cases like this, does the EEOC make a determination whether or not the university did anything wrong or did they just suggest mediation to start
Amber Schubert
Unverified
32:32
with? The EEOC does not make a determination at this phase. Very rarely do they actually proceed to filing suit on behalf of someone. What usually happens is if the parties are not able to mediate the case to a resolution the EEOC issues what's called a right to sue
and then Dr. Rodriguez's attorney would her she had a private attorney representing her through this and he would have filed suit in federal court. Senator Hamer you're recognized.
Chair
Unverified
32:59
Thank you. Just from a layman's perspective this
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:02
is a matter of we're going to cut our losses and move on even though it feels like we're rewarding bad behavior with good. Is that a fair assessment? I would say that's a fair assessment, Senator. Did she go to work for another university
Amber Schubert
Unverified
33:16
in the state? I'm honestly not sure. To my knowledge, she's not working for another state university at the moment,
but I can't say that with 100% certainty. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions?
Seeing no questions. Oh, I'm so sorry. Senator Payton. That's all right. Are you ready for a motion? Yes, sir. I would move that we approve the settlement in the amount, amended amount, of $5,000 if we're just going to pay her to go away. And anything more than that, I think we have a strong case. That would be my motion.
Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a substitute
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:00
motion. My substitute motion is to approve the settlement. This is, as I understand it, is a settlement of a case. And so even if we modify that amount, there's no guarantee that it would ultimately be agreed to. And just based on what I've heard from the university and the fact that they aggressively defend and the testimony is they normally do not settle, is that what I've heard,
I would move that we go ahead
and approve it as is. So we have a
substitute motion. Do I have a second? I've got a second. Is
there any discussion? Senator Dotson you're recognized. Thank you
madam chair and I'm not sure if this is a matter of discussion or more of a question that staff might be able to answer but if this settlement is not agreed to and it does go to litigation and there is a an award of some sort
where does that go through does that come back to this committee for approval later on? Thank you.
Amber Schubert
Unverified
35:38
I'm happy to share with you my knowledge if it would help at all.
Speaker 112
36:08
No, she's got you an answer. she's got an
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
36:40
answer miss Johnson our understanding is that if this if we sent
it back it moves forward and there is another settlement it will come back to this subcommittee if it moves forward goes to a trial and there is an award it will come back as a report that is our understanding as
staff and and that report then would just be filed with us it wouldn't require approval or review at all at that point in the
future thank you representative gasway you're recognized for discussion
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
37:16
thank you madam chair and my point is just uh in support of representative shepard's motion
i agree with representative shepard and council for the university these cases are vigorously defended by the university their council would not have entered into this agreement I don't believe unless there were some pretty unless there was good reason to do so I didn't ask the question I was going to ask the question but I chose not to about you know what are the bad facts here that caused the university to agree to pay $34,000 because just having had enough tried enough
lawsuits over the years. Insurance companies, universities, corporations, they don't just give you money for no reason. And there had to be some facts here that made the university's council think that this was a good idea and a fair settlement and in the best interest of the university. And so for all of those reasons, I'm supportive of Representative Shepard's motion and would ask that we approve the substitute motion
thank you representative did you want to say
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:26
there you go representative shepherd well this is a question as a point of clarification if if the settlement is approved doesn't that come out of the appropriation for
Speaker 137
38:41
the university it's for the system yes so i mean as further discussion it's it's not as i mean
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:48
the system itself and the institutions they do not it's not in their interest regardless of how people may feel about it that is going to affect their appropriation because this is money that otherwise would
be available for them to utilize um in in other ways that i'm sure they would prefer to and uh so i you know i don't take these lightly obviously i would my preference would be that we didn't have to pay anything but i i'm willing to give some deference to those that have been close to this who have defended this and and do understand that in some cases it makes sense to try to resolve it with a relatively smaller amount in settlement thank you is there any other discussion
we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye opposed no motion is passed moving down to item d miss tucker if you will come to the table introduce yourself we'll move on to the claims review portion of the agenda for this part of the agenda Ms. Johnson will read a brief summary for each claim followed by any discussion and questions by the members and then the subcommittee will take
action on the item items in part d of the agenda are reassurances or loss reassurances of loss or expired warrants or unpaid bills where the
agency admitted liability Ms. Tucker you're recognized introduce yourself.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
40:32
Attorney Specialist for the Claims Commission. Item D1 is claim number 230925, Dick's Sporting Goods Incorporated versus Arkansas
Department of Finance and Administration Corporate Income
Speaker 171
40:54
my paper. The claimant in this case requested reissuance of
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
41:02
an outdated warrant in the amount of $30,355 payable from the Department of Finance and Administration corporate income tax section.
The claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Are
there any questions? Ms. Tucker, does the commission have anything they would like to add? No, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to approve the item? I have a motion.
Do I have a second? I've got a second. All in favor say aye. opposed no motion carries d2 item
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
41:55
d2 is claim number two three one five eight seven harmony health plan incorporated versus arkansas insurance department claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of seventy nine thousand three hundred and forty nine dollars payable from the state insurance department the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill with the claims
commission like to add anything no but I'm happy to answer any questions are there any questions seeing no questions do I have a motion
to approve I have a motion do I have a second second all
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
42:41
in favor say aye opposed no motion carries Miss Johnson. Item D3 is claim number 241865 McKesson Medical Surgical Supply versus Arkansas Department of Health. Claimant requested reissuance of an
outdated warrant in the amount of $40,147.53 payable from the Arkansas Department of Health. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker with the kames commission like to
add anything no but i'm happy to answer any questions are there any questions seeing no questions i have a motion do i have a second any discussion on the motion all in favor
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
43:24
say aye oppose no motion carries ms johnson item d4 is claim number 251217
asima holdings versus arkansas department of finance and administration claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $38,622.01 payable from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. The claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker, does the commission have anything they want to add? No, but I'm
happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions?
Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to approve? I've got a
motion. Need a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. opposed no motion passes miss
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:07
johnson item d5 is claim number 251337 gainwell technologies llc versus arkansas economic development commission claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of 910 297 dollars payable from the arkansas economic development commission the claims commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an
appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker, do y'all want to add anything? No, but
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
44:38
I'm happy to answer questions. Representative Meeks, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, just, uh, this is my first time serving on this, uh, committee. So, um, we're having to reissue these checks basically because they didn't cash them in the first place, right? What is the administrative cost to the state for reissuing these checks? And is there any way where we can start deducting that amount to reissue these checks so that we can encourage these people to
Speaker 182
45:01
actually cash them? As far as our office goes, I'm unaware of what the administrative cost is, but I
Speaker 164
45:09
can find out for you. It would be fairly nominal, I would suppose. But, and I don't know about whether or not- Can you pull the
Speaker 182
45:15
microphone closer to you? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I'm soft-spoken as well. Could you hear me? Could you hear my answer? Yeah, yeah. Okay. But we could find out that up for you. Okay.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:24
I'm just kind of curious, uh, you know, for reissuing these checks. I mean, there, there, there may not be a whole lot of cost, you know, a stamp or whatever, but there
is administrative cost to it. And, uh, we keep doing this over and over again. I mean, those little dollars, they eventually add up. So thank you. Senator Hamer, you're recognized. Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:44
you, Madam chair. And I'm sorry, I may, you may have said, I just didn't hear it. How long is it? Is this a matter of a check having not been cashed is that what
Speaker 164
45:53
this is this one yes it's an out of date it was not cashed within that time period and how long was that time period you know i'm not sure the exact time period for checks i believe it might be 180 days i'm not sure or or 90 um for
the state issued checks uh the department of finance may be able to answer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:14
that so i guess what got above the radar screen is what my fellow legislators to the left are saying and that is how do you go 190 108 days and not notice 900,000 is missing
Speaker 164
46:28
right and we we don't know it's it's not the Commission's we don't do that analysis we just follow the statute and that's the procedure for out of date or lost checks is by the statute okay
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:42
and then one last question that madam
Chair the we would have owed them money anyway right I'm sorry I
Speaker 164
46:49
said we owed on the money anyway right that's correct the agency
had already issued the warrant okay all right thank you are there any other questions seeing no questions do I have a motion to approve the item I have a motion do I have a second second is there any discussion seeing no discussion
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
47:13
all in favor say I aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Ms. Johnson. Item D6 is claim number 251338, Gainwell Technologies
LLC versus Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $263,358 payable from the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker, does the commission have anything they'd
like to add? No, but I'm happy
to answer questions. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:43
What services do they provide, or what did we give them a check for?
Speaker 164
47:49
Do you know? It appears to relate to Project 15690. I'm not certain. There weren't specifics included in that. I can look up for it, but I'm not sure. That's right. I'll get it offline. I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:01
would like to know what are the services that we're providing them, number one. And number two, did they reach out to us or did you reach out to them to reveal there was a problem about the check not being cashed?
Speaker 164
48:19
In this instance, the agency reached out to the commission and provided the out-of-date warrant and asked the commission to reissue it under the statute. Okay, so we reached out to,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:31
our agency reached out to Gainwell to notify them that the check had not been cashed after 180 days. Is that right? The other way around. The agency
Speaker 164
48:43
reached out to the commission to let us know, and then the commission confirmed with the auditor of the state that the warrant was voided
and that no duplicate warrant had been issued and that we, the Claims Commission, had not reissued this warrant. And then the process from there is that we send the claimant a complaint form. They must fill it out and file it with us. That's all under Arkansas Code, annotated, 2544105. That's the new, where it's newly codified. Okay, I'll get with you afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to, got a motion and a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
49:37
in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Ms. Johnson. Item D7 is claim number 251347, Moses C. Ejiofor and Joyce D. Ejiofor versus Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $18,352 payable
from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker,
would y'all like to add anything? No, but I'm happy to answer questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to approve? Motion second? Got a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor say
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
50:22
aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Ms. Johnson. Item D-8 is claim number 251387.
The Strong Company Incorporated versus Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration withholding wage. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $19,648.30 payable from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration withholding wage. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker, do you have anything you want to add? No, but I'm happy to answer questions. Are
there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion? Motion, a second?
Second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
51:07
carries. Ms. Johnson. Item D-9 is claim number 251680, UA Pulaski Technical College v. Arkansas Department of Commerce. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $92,834.34, payable from the Arkansas Department of Commerce. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill.
Ms. Tucker, would y'all like to add anything? No, but I'm happy to answer questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion? Do I need a second? Got a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Now we'll move down to E. Now we'll move on down to E, which contains two awarded claims that have been referred pursuant to the Arkansas Code 1910-215-B.
Ms. Johnson, please give us a brief
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
52:10
description of the claims. Item E-1 is claim number 230-005, Jonathan Boone v. Arkansas Department of Transportation. Claimants sought $300,000 in damages, alleging that an Arkansas Highway Police officer hit claimant's vehicle while attempting a U-turn across multiple lanes of traffic. RDOT did not dispute liability and requested a hearing to determine the nature and extent of claimant's damages.
After discovery, the parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $150,000. The Claims Commission approved the settlement agreement and referred it for review, approval, and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker, would y'all like to add anything? No, but I'm
happy to answer questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to affirm the ruling? Got a motion. Second? We've got a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Motion carries. Ms. Johnson. Item
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
53:10
E2 is claim number 250694, Jamie Van Landingham as Special Administrator of the Estate of Jimmy Van Landingham versus Arkansas Department of Human Services. Claimant sought an unspecified amount in damages for wrongful death, medical negligence, and violation of nursing home residence rights related to the death of Mr. Jimmy Van Landingham at a DHS nursing home facility. Claimant alleged that Mr. Van Landingham, a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic,
passed away following a failed tracheostomy tube replacement conducted by nursing home staff. DHS initially disputed liability, and the Claims Commission directed the parties to begin discovery. During discovery, the parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $500,000. The Claims Commission approved the settlement agreement and referred it for review, approval, and placement on an appropriation bill. Ms. Tucker, would you all like
Chair
Unverified
54:04
to add anything? No, but I'm happy to answer questions.
Are there any questions? Seeing no questions. Representative, Lady Munior, I'm sorry, a question. Representative Eves. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
54:23
I mean, reading through this a couple of times, have the issues that caused the problem, have they been corrected with this Arkansas Health Center? So the
Speaker 164
54:37
commission never had the opportunity to evaluate the evidence in this claim
because it didn't go to a claim hearing. It
Speaker 182
54:43
settled before that. So the parties are likely here, and they would be better suited to answer your questions. I'll ask
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
54:50
that question offline. I just want to get an answer to that. I don't want to bore the committee with that. Thank you. There
it goes. Okay. Representative Eves, did you have another question? All right.
Are there any other questions? Seeing no other questions, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for a motion. We have a motion and a second. Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Your motion is to affirm. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. No discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose no. Motion carries. Moving down to F on the agenda, which is the denied and dismissed claims that have been appealed by the claimant.
Ms. Johnson, please give a brief description of the
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
55:52
claims. Thank you, Madam Chair. Item F1 is claim number 250621, Beverly Blair v. Arkansas Department of Human Services. Claimant sought an unspecified amount in damages related to the removal of her minor daughter from her custody. Claimant alleged that her daughter's removal was inadequate and that DHS made no effort to contact claimant or to seek reunification. DHS denied liability and moved to dismiss the claim.
The Claims Commission granted the motion and dismissed the claim, stating that it did not have jurisdiction to take any action with respect to the circuit court order terminating claimant's parental rights or to consider any claim for violation of due process. Claimant now appeals. Mr. Tucker, would you like to add anything? No, but
I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no question seeing no questions. Do I have a motion? I Have a motion second. I've got a second any discussion on the motion
Seeing no discussion all in favor
say I opposed no The motion carries representative dots
and you're recognized Madam Chair, I would move on item G, one through seven, that we batch these items together. We normally do that a lot of times on these corrections, denied and dismissed claims, and then give the opportunity for anyone to pull something from the batch if so desired.
But that would be my motion is to batch these. All right. Do we have a second? Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Then we're going to
batch these. Now that the items have been batched, do I have a motion to affirm the decision of the Claims Commission concerning items G1 through G2?
Oh, 7, sorry. G7. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye opposed no the
motion carries this concludes our agenda seeing no further business this meeting is adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Litigation Reports
C. Litigation Settlements
D. Reissuance of Warrants/Unpaid Bills
E. Awarded Claims Referred Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-215(b)
F. Denied and Dismissed Claims – Appealed by Claimant
G. Corrections Denied and Dismissed Claims – Appealed by Claimant
H. Adjolurnment
Documents
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 6
Speaker 14
Representative DeAnn Vaught Chair
Unverified
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
Amber Schubert
Unverified
Speaker 32
Senator John Payton Chair
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 73
Speaker 77
Speaker 81
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 94
Speaker 99
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson Chair
Unverified
Speaker 115
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 98
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 112
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 164
Speaker 168
Speaker 171
Speaker 182