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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 14
1:34
there's a lot to get one committee but that's more people to
know 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. adam B is the litigation oversight
do we have someone from the department University of Arkansas we're not doing B one because they asked for it to be pulled until next month. so we'll be doing B2 please enterdale introduce yourself for the record and then you may begin.
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
2:40
Good afternoon. My name is Sherry Robinson. I'm senior associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas system good
Amber Schubert
Unverified
2:49
afternoon. I'm Amber Schubert and I am associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
2:57
system. may begin OK I actually have item 2A, C andd so taking to A Alicia Graham. Miss Graham is an Africaner who brings a lawsuit under Title7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Speaker 32
3:11
alleging that she was subjected to discriminatory practices while she was employed at UAMs and retaliated against after reporting discrimination. Miss Graham alleges that her supervisor changed her job duties and disciplined her for not following protocols on inputting inputting patient information for clinical trials. Miss Graham also alleged that she applied for several promotions that were filled with less qualified applicants. Miss Graham was ultimately terminated from UAMs for
violations ofuAMS policy and federal law applicable to document retention in clinical trials which can have significant consequences for the university after a review 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, Senatoreyton thank you madam there you go thank you madam chairir
so it says that the defendant filed an answer on June 23. are we privy to read that answer?
I don't see it included here in the
Speaker 32
4:51
docks the answer is a matter of public record on the federal judiciary site but I'm happy to provide a copy of the answer, um, through our governmental affairs office if you would like it. I mean
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 interrogatories I think along the way discovery is
Speaker 32
5:17
interrogatories and requests for production. the answer is the only thing that's been filed right now by the university 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 asks 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 going to 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 will as soon as that there you go sir
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:59
thank you ma'am 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 OK 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 Cex or b I'm happy
Amber Schubert
Unverified
6:47
to do B yes item B is Megann 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 VI. 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 oppose no
motion is passed. C all right thank you madam chairir. Soc andd
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
7:39
are interesting. They actually were filed at the same time and have very very very similar
Speaker 32
7:43
facts and claims. I don't know if you want me to talk about them then together maybe
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
7:49
if that would be easier I have to do a motion after each
Speaker 32
7:57
one. not a problem. charlene Jimenez vsus Board of truststes of the University of Arkansas, Miss Jimenez is Hispanic and brings her lawsuit under Title6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th ammendment to the constitution alleging she was unfairly dismissed as a student in the UAMs nurse annethesisgra based on our ethnicity. She was terminated from the program for multiple issues that were inconsistent with professional responsibility and accountability under the UMS programme standards scholastic
noncognitive performance standards and AANA code of ethics. Those are specific to the nurse annethesis program. After a review of the complaint and relevant documents UAMS filed a or excuse me the board filed an answer denying the allegations, scovery 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. Senatoreyton
you're recognized thank you madam chairir. I just want to point out again
we have that the defendant I guess filed an answer on August5th or it says by August5th and we don't have that in our file to know what that answer was. And yes we have filed an answer
Speaker 32
9:30
in both the Jimenez and the Trevino cases and I'm happy to provide those to the committee through our governmental affairs representative send that to staff and forward it
to us I appreciate it 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 oppose no motion carries moving down tod
Sherry Robinson
Unverified
10:02
that is alfredo Trevino versus Board
Speaker 32
10:04
ofrustees of the University of Arkansas. He has an identical fact pattern and claims raised againstuAMs that he that Miss Jimenez does. he was also dismissed for multiple issues that were inconsistent with professional responsibility and accountability under UMS programme standards, the scholastic noncognitive 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 depositive 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 adam 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 and introduce yourself and present your report Good afternoon. Alicia Austin Smith. I'm chief counsel for revenue
Speaker 72
11:27
at DFA. Brad Young with the officefice of Revenue Legal counsel you may begin
thank you madam chair members of the committee we actually have4 settlements that we're asking for review and approval today so we'll take them one by one. The first is Hudson vsus Tyson Foods. This was a corporation income tax refund case it's kind of rather complicated and involves the claiming of tax credits beyond the statute of limitations. so initially Tyson was seeking a refund for taxxy 2016 of1.8 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 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 about6 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. Mm I'm sorry
Senatoreyton you're recognized thank you madam Cha I was holding back to see if somebody else gonna ask a question this actually will apply to more than one of these cases so we can get this out of the way but how do we figure the interest what interest rate and how often is it compounded compounding because $900,000 on 1.5 correction
seems like a an ordinary amount of interest
Speaker 77
13:18
is 10% and compounded annually or monthly or what that's 10% is the
Speaker 73
13:25
statutory rate and I believe it's compounded annually. annually I'm looking to my boss for confirmation here. yes thank you we've got some
Speaker 73
13:35
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 and we did get a firm answer on
annually OK thank you thank you madam chairir. are there any
other questions seeing no questions do I have a motion Do I have a second ?
I any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye
oppose no motion passes right down to B.
Speaker 72
14:14
thank you ma'am you yes we are now at C1B Myum O our office had fied audit issues sales and use tax assessments for taxear 2019 and2020. 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 concede70% of the construction were involved in in the initial installation exception was applicable so the tax assessment would be reduced by that70% and the interest would be reduced accordingly. so we're asking for approval. Are there any questions Representative Eves you're recognized just a quick
quick question. was it their choice not to go to the tax
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
15:07
appeals commission and go straight to circuit court? I wouldn't be able to speak for that but I
Speaker 72
15:13
think timely is representative the procedural history
Speaker 88
15:17
here was I believe the case was filed if I recall right first with the tax
Speaker 73
15:23
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
got a motion and I've got a second. Any discussion all in favor say aye oppose no. motion is passed. C 1C yes thank you.
Speaker 72
15:53
This is Southwestern Energy this is a national 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 and the plaintiff filed litigation in circuit court. The 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 we're 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 aye oppose no, the motion is carried. C1d this is the
Speaker 72
17:02
final case. this is Tokison vsus DFA This involves sales and use tax assessments for taxers 2016 through 2021. the tokkiin appealed the several of the years to the former officef of Hearings and app
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 to a different interpretation so that was the basis of the lawsuit. the parties have negotiated a potential settlement and this one would result in a waiver of0% of the tax but75% of the interest that was assessed and we're 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 sayy aye oppose no motion carries.
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. thank you again my name's Amber
Amber Schubert
Unverified
18:12
Schubbert and I am an associate general counsel with the University of Arkansas system.
C2A is ammberreich 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 qual 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 Amberreich alleged that her supervisor, during the short term of her employment had
harassed her in violation of Title V7I 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 of4,000 dollars. I'm happy to answer any questions about that are
there any questions senatoreyton you're recognized thank you
madamir. So was the eligibility for rehire addressed in the settlement that is a good question I'm
Speaker 99
19:22
not entirely sure. I can I don't think I have that document Actually if
Amber Schubert
Unverified
19:26
you would give me a second, I can get with you after I bet I do have that in my I guess we can't change it now
but I mean it should be part of the settlement sometimes it's part of the settlement
Amber Schubert
Unverified
19:36
that do you mean that we would mark in addressed yes it is addressed I do not know whether it was addressed with her agreeing not to reapply or not but it is addressed yes thank you Representative makeser recognized you madam Chair, I'm over here to your right right
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
19:54
right was there any investigation done to see if the complaint was actually legitimate or not. There was an
Amber Schubert
Unverified
20:00
investigation done. I can tell you that the supervisor no longer works there. and I'm sorry I omitted that fact. 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 oppose no, motion passes
Amber Schubert
Unverified
20:25
to be yes ma'am thank you. the next matter is Doctor Sarah rodriguez versus the University of Arkansas. As I mentioned this one was also settled through the EEoC's mediation process. Drctor 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 exp exposure if we had to litigate this all the way through discovery and potentially pay
attorneys fees at the end of a trial. So that case was settled for34,000 dollars, 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 she was passed over for 10 year promotion.
so she was passed over for 10 year and she says it was due to race
Amber Schubert
Unverified
22:15
she alleged yes 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 Drctor rodriguez had been given many years where she was allowed to not teach to be excluded from her teaching another obligations so that she could
focus solely on her publication and she didn't make significant progress during that time. and and so we felt 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
Amber Schubert
Unverified
23:39
to that that's exactly right if you don't achieve tenure if you aren't given 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.'m just why why34,000 dollars then for a settlement on someone who didn't meet the requirements right and that's where I was saying that
Amber Schubert
Unverified
24:05
there was one of the ive 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 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 had done some other small publication, not as much as
other people who are typically awarded tenure head. so those two factors we felt like gave some risk to us in proceeding to a law su it and of course at the end of
a lawsuit, you have even more attorney's fees than we would 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 no. so these are a
Amber Schubert
Unverified
25:32
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. thank you Representative
Chair
Unverified
25:49
makes sure recognized for a question. Thank you ma'am chair.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:53
So sounds like she was given plenty of opportunities and you said that there was a 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 book
Amber Schubert
Unverified
26:09
herself. my understanding is it's a little of both that both the faculty member as well
as the university have an interest in those
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:20
publications 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.till didn't get tenure, was fired and now so what we're what we're doing is we're going to reward her34,000 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 threatened to sue that the state's gonna give me tens of thousands of dollars you see how I absolutely do and
Amber Schubert
Unverified
27:03
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 council has to say with this one we felt like there were some risks. I mean34,000 dollars being half of a tenure track faculty member's salary doesn't really represent a superhi payout
for what we could have been looking at at the end of a jury trial.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:48
my my concern is is that we're going to open the floodgate to a lot more of these34,000 dollars and then eventually it will start to will start to add up I hear
Speaker 98
27:57
you thank you for that. Senatoreyton, you're recognize thank you madam chairir. So
in the proposed settlement is she going to continue employment with the university or not? No her her employment was terminated when
Amber Schubert
Unverified
28:08
she is going to be required to finish the book
that's not a matter of our concern anymore. Yeah, that's the 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 else think so
Amber Schubert
Unverified
28:26
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 so we've paid
her 140,000 for nothing for two years for nothing
Amber Schubert
Unverified
28:48
I honestly didn't litigate this one and so I think you may have reached the limits of my knowledge, as to her pay and things like that you said 34,000 was
half a year that's what I have been70,000
Amber Schubert
Unverified
29:03
a year basically that that's correct that is my understanding 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 their tenure while they're working on obtaining tenure. Representative shepherd thank you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:27
madam chairir. you touched on some of the things I was going to ask about and I appreciate the fact that you've indicated that that the university does aggressively defend these it appears to me was this still what was the procedural status wass this still pending before the EoC and
they which is a prerequisite to ultimately filing suit
Amber Schubert
Unverified
29:50
that is correct and the EEoC reached out and asked if we would be willing to engage in mediation. and so this was settled through the EEoC's
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:57
media tion process and do you know just for the benefit of the committee and I certainly can understand that there are times where you have to 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 to a either for a determination by theEoC or
should she have been given her right
to sue and filed in federal district court. Well, in addition to
Amber Schubert
Unverified
30:23
the compensatory damages which would 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
30:58
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 I mean basically in this instance what you've told us is that everybody in that process except for the faculty review committee rejected her her I
guess her it was an application or her 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
Speaker 140
31:34
sympathy towards granting tenure. I I don't have the specific numbers on
Amber Schubert
Unverified
31:40
that. I can tell you that the people below the faculty appealsittee who recommended denial are the people who were in her department. the people
who saw what she did. so by the time it gets to the faculty appealsittee, 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 often obviously we appreciate
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
32:06
the the job that the faculty does but just it's it stands out in this case where every 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 answers.
Chair
Unverified
32:22
thank youpresentative Eaves you're recognized thank you madam
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
32:26
chairir. 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 mediationtion to start with.
Amber Schubert
Unverified
32:37
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 Do.Rod ri gue z ' s attorney with her she had a private attorney representing her through this and he would have filed suit in federal court. Senator hammer you're recognized thank you just from
Chair
Unverified
33:04
a layman's perspective this is a matter of we're going
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:07
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. Does she do you know, did she go to work for another university in the state? I'm honestly not sure to my
Amber Schubert
Unverified
33:23
knowledge she's not working for another state university at the moment but I I can't say that
with 100% certainty. thank you are there any other questions seeing no questions oh I'm so
sorry senatoreyton's are you ready for a motion sir I would move that we approved the settlement in the amount amended amount of5,000 dollars if we're just gonna pay her to go away and anything more than that I think we have a strong case
that'd be my motion Representative shepherd you're
recognized for a substitute substitute motion is to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:05
approve the settlement this is a this is as I understand it is a settlement of a case and so even if we modify that amount there's no 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 know that they aggressively defend and her and the testimony is they normally do not settle it's 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, um, 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
Unknown speaker
36:06
I'm happy to share with you my knowledge if it would help at all.
Speaker 112
36:40
No she's she's got you an answer she's got an answer . Miss Johnson
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
36:45
our understanding is that if this if we sent it back it moves forward and there's 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 repproval or review at all at that point in the
future. thank you. Representative Gaway you're recognized for
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
37:21
discussion thank you madam chair and my point is just in support of Representative shepherd's motion I agree with Representative Shepherd and counsel for the university these cases are vigorously defended by the university theirir 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 chose not to about you know what are the bad facts here that caused the university to agree to pay34,000 dollars 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 um'm supportive ofpresentative Shepherd's motion and would ask that we approve the substitute motion p re s ent ative you know like
did you want to say there you gopresentative shepherd well this is a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:35
question a point of clarification if if this settlement is approved doesn't that come out of the
appropriation for the university it's for the system
Speaker 137
38:46
so I mean as further discussion it's it's not as it mean the the system itself and the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:53
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 in in other ways that I'm sure they would prefer to and so
Id 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
oppose no motion is passed. moving down to itemam 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 miss 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. itemdams inartd of the agenda are reassurances or loss
reassurances of loss or expired warrants or unpaid bills where the ag
ency admitted liability, Miss Tucker you're recognized to introduce yourself
Speaker 164
40:29
good afternoon. I'm Micah Tucker, the attorney
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
40:37
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 tax section
Speaker 171
40:59
lot got a flashlight the claimant in this case requested reissuance
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
41:07
of an outdated warrant in the amount of30,355 dollars payable from the department of finance and Administration corporate income
tax section. Thelas Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. are there any questions ?
Miss 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
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
42:00
d2 itemtemd2 is claim number 231587 Harmony Health Plan incorporated vsus Arkansas Insurance Department. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of79,349 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? all
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
42:46
in favor say aye oppose no motion carries Miss Johnson. Itemd3 is claim number 241865 MckKesson Medical Surgical Supply versus Arkansas
Department of Health. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of40,147 dollars53 cents payable from the Arkansas Department of Health. Thelaims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker with the claims commission liked 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 say aye oppose no
motion carries Miss Johnson. Item D4 is
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
43:29
claim number 251217 Asima Holdings vsus Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration.laimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of38,622 dollars 1 cents payable from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. Thelaims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill.
Oh, Miss Tucker does the commission have anything
they want to add but'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 to need a second.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
44:12
Second all in favor say aye oppose no motion passes. Miss Johnson. Itemd5 is claim number 251337 Gainwell Technologies LLC vsus Arkansas Economic Development Commission. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of
$910,297 payable from the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, thelaims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker, do y'all want to add
anything? but I'm happy to answer questions Representative meeks you are recognized
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
44:43
for a question. Thank you madam Chair. just this is my first time serving on this committee so 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 actually cash them our office I'm
Speaker 182
45:08
unaware of what the administrative cost is but I can find out for you it would
Speaker 164
45:14
be fairly nominal I would suppose but and I don't know about can you pull the microphone closer to you'm sorry
Speaker 182
45:20
I'm soft spoken as well could you hear me? could you hear my answer? OK but we could find out that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
45:29
for you'm I'm just kind of curious you know for reissuing these checks. I mean they're there there may not be a whole lot of cost, you know, a stamp or whatever but there is administrative cost to it and we keep doing this over and over again. I mean those little dollars they eventually add up so thank you Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you ma'am Chair and I'm sorry
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:49
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 this is
Speaker 164
46:01
yes it's an out of date. it was not cashed within that time period and how long was that time period'm not sure the exact time period for checks I I believe it might be 180 days. I'm not sure or or 90 for the state issued checks. the Department of Finance may be able to answer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:19
that so I guess that what got above the radar screen is what my fellow legislators should left her saying and that is how do you go 19108 days and not notice
Speaker 164
46:32
900,000 is missing 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 as as by the statute and and then one last question madam chairir. the we we would have
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:47
vod them money anyway, right?'m sorry I said we owed them the money anyway right that's correct agency had issued the warrant all right
Speaker 164
46:54
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? Secon. Is there any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor say aye oppose no motion
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
47:18
carries Miss Johnson. Item D6 is claim number 251338. Gainwell technologies LLC vsus 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. M Tucker, does the commission have anything
they'd like to add? No, but I'm happy to answer questions. Senator Hammer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:48
you're recognized thank you madam chair what services do they provide or what did we give
Speaker 164
47:54
them a check for? Do you know appears to relate to project 15,690 I'm I'm not certain there weren't specifics included in that. I can I can
look up for it but look it up but I'm
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:06
I'm not sure that's right but I would like to know what is the serv what are the services that that we're providing them number one and number 2, did they reach out to us or did you reach out to them to reveal there was a problem about the chick not
Speaker 164
48:24
being cashed in this instance the agency reached out to the commission and provided the out of the out of date warrant and ask the commission to reissue it under the statute.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:37
OK, so we reached out to our our agency reached out to gainwell to notify them that the check had not been cashed after 180 days. is that right
Speaker 164
48:48
the agency reached out to the commission to let us know and then the 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. 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 in a 2nd 2nd any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye oppose no motion carries Miss Johnson.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
49:44
Item D7 is claim number 251347, Moses see Ageopor and Joyced Igeopor 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. Thelaims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Ttucker 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? Motion2, got a second. are is there any discussion on the motion? all in favor say aye oppose no
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
50:27
motion carries Miss Johnson. Item D8 is claim number 251387. the Strong Company Incorporated vsus Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration withholding wage. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of 19,648 dollars30 cents payable from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration withholding wage.
Thelas mission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Miss Tucker, would y'all 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 any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
51:12
oppose no motion carries Miss Miss Johnson. Item D9 is claim number 251680ua pulaski Technical College vsus
Arkansas Department of Commerce. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of 92,834 dollars34 cents payable from the Arkansas Department of Commerce. Thelas Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Miss 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 Ine I need a second? Got a second. Is there any discussion on the motion seeing no
discussion all in favor say aye oppose 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 215B . Miss
Johnson, please give us a brief
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
52:15
description of the claims Item E1 is claim number 230005.jonathan Boone vsus
Arkansas Department of Transportation. Claimants sought300,000 dollars in damages alleging that an Arkansas highway police officer hit claimant's vehicle while attempting a U-turn across multiple lanes of traffic. Ardott 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 dollars. The claims commission approved the settlement agreement and referred it for review, approval and placement on an appropriation bill.
Miss 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
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
53:15
oppose no motion carries Miss Johnson itemtem E2 is claim number 250694 Jamie Van Landingham as special administrator of the
estate of Jimmie Van Landingham vsus Arkansas Department of Human Services. Claimant sought an unspecified amount in damages for wrongful death, medical negligence and violation of nursing home residents rights related to the death of Mister Jimmy Van Landingham at a DHS nursing home facility. Claimant alleged that Mister Van Landingham, a ventilatordependent 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 of500,000 dollars. The claims commission approved the settlement agreement and referred it for review approval and placement on an appropriation bill. M Tucker, would y'all like to
Chair
Unverified
54:09
add anything? No, but I'm happy to answer questions are there
any questions seeing no questions representative ladyman you're oops I'm sorry a question uhpresentative Iaves
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
54:26
thank you madam chairman I mean reading through this a couple of times have the the issues that caused the problem have they been corrected with this Arkansas healthalthenter the commission never had the
Speaker 164
54:42
opportunity to evaluate the evidence in this claim because it didn't go to a claim hearing it settled before that. So the parties
Speaker 182
54:48
are likely here and they would be better suited to answer your questions that'll I'll ask that question
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
54:57
offline. I just want to get an answer to that. I don't want to bore
the committee with that OK. Representative Eaves did you have another
question right. are there any other questions? seeing no other questionspresentative ladyman you're recognized for a motion. We have a motion and a 2nd 2nd
is there any discussion on the motion your motion is to affirm OK. so we have a motion and a second. no discussion all in favor say aye oppose no motion carries. moving down to on the agenda which is the denied and dismissed claims that have been appealed by the claimant M Johnson, please give a brief description of the claims.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
55:57
thank you madam Chair. Item F1 is claim number 250621 Beverly Blair vsus Arkansas Department of Human Services. Claimants 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. Claant now appeals Miss 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 aye opposed no the motion carriespresentative dotson you're
recognized Madam Chair, I would move on item G1 through7 that we batch these items together we normally do that a lot of times on on these corrections denied and dismissed claims and then give the opportunity for anyone to pull something from the batch if if so desired but that would be my motion is to
batch these right do we have a second any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye oppose 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 adamsg1 through G2. 07 , sorry. G7.
I have a motion do I have a second?2nd any discussion on the motion? seeing no discussion all in favor say aye oppose 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 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 77
Speaker 73
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