JBC-Claims

Jerseys a quorum members are you would everyone take your seats we're gonna begin this meeting. What I'd like to do for the members to take a look at your agenda we're going to start a little bit out of order on item C. these are corrections claims denied and dismissed that is been appealed by the claimant. And so if there's no objection on entertain a motion the batch item C. one through C. eight. Okay. So I have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Now The Addams been batch do I have a motion to approve item C. one through C. eight. Here about your motion and a second all in favor say aye. Posed. Motion carries. Our members now will move on the agenda two item D.. And that is a case of Deborah Paul versus university of Arkansas for medical sciences it's my understanding that this is negotiated settlement Mr asking if you would please give a brief description of this claim. This is a negotiated settlement agreement between Deborah Paul and the University of Arkansas for medical sciences claimant initially sought five hundred thousand dollars alleging that an employee of UAMS negligently left a sponge in her body cavity during surgery following discovery of the sponge days later claiming allege that a second surgery was scheduled to remove this bunch claimant stated that she remained in the hospital for almost a month respond at UAMS answer denying liability UAMS admitted that a sponge was left in claimant's body cavity during surgery and the claimant had a laparoscopic procedure to remove it however responded the night that the retains funds or the procedure cost patient harm on February twenty fifth twenty twenty one the parties entered into a settlement agreement where the claim was settled for fifty thousand dollars the parties then submitted a joint motion to approve the agreement the commission approved the settlement agreement and referred the award to the General Assembly for review and placement on an appropriation bill pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section nineteen ten to fifteen be. Thank you Mr beats does the commission have anything to add no Sir. Okay. All right is there any questions or discussion for members. Sixty nine two I have a motion to approve the negotiated settlement. Your motion and a second. All right all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. Okay members will now move to item be on the agenda and specifically B. one Nelda Coleman versus the University of Arkansas for medical sciences in the Arkansas state claims commission. Mr second if you would please give a brief description of this claim. Claim it now the Coleman filed this claim attempting to reopen a prior claim the prior claim claim number one five zero four eight two was filed by claimant and her now deceased husband against respondent University of Arkansas for medical sciences in that claim claimant and her husband alleged that you M. S. was medically negligent in providing care to claimants husband the claims commission dismissed the prior claim upon you and Mrs motion to dismiss and denied reconsideration on appeal the Arkansas General Assembly upheld the dismissal claimant filed the instant claim against you in this and the Arkansas state claims commission in her complaint claimant did not reference any particular cause of action but stated that the quote the statute of limitations was not out on the claim as a university hospital the tourney stated comma we were barred from the hearings that were held and quote in her supporting documentation claimant stated that she would like to prior case re opened special commissioners were appointed by the governor to hear this matter since the Arkansas state claims commission was named as a party as respondent in this case the claims commission was represented by the attorney general's office and moved to dismiss the case under Arkansas rules of civil procedure twelve V. six under the doctrine of res judicata and under the three year statute of limitations respond to you M. S. also moved to dismiss the case under the doctrine of res judicata Clement responded to both motions to dismiss alleging that she had not received due process of law in the prior claim and arguing that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply the special commissioners grant granted both motions to dismiss as to respond in Arkansas state claims commission the special commissioners found first the claimant had not been barred from any hearings second the claimant's claim was subject to dismissal pursuant to the doctor restricted kata and third that the instant claim was time barred by the three year statute of limitations for constitutional claims the special commissioners granted you a messes motion to dismiss motion to dismiss because the instant claim related to the same allegations of medical negligence. As stated in the prior claim the special commissioners found the claimant had fully exhausted her procedural avenues to challenge the claims commissions dismissal of the prior claim through her motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal to the Arkansas General Assembly The commissioners found that the instant claim was an improper attempt to re litigate the claims commission's final decision of the prior claim climate now people's. Mr B. does the commission have anything to add yes Sir I would note just that. This attempt to re open a prior claim is not permitted under the claims commission rules and that the previous claim filed by miss Coleman against a mess was fully litigated the Commission denied they are granted you and Mrs motion to dismiss a considered miss Coleman's motion for reconsideration and denied that motion that claim came before this body and with the ruling was affirmed by the commission so. That claim has been fully litigated at that point at this point and that decision is final. Okay are those a and my hearing you correctly they were dismissed basically on procedural grounds for a statue imitations and and that sort of thing well on the. You amis's motion to dismiss was denied for lack of jurisdiction that her claims were against the physician's. And the motion for reconsideration was denied for claimants failure to offer evidence that was not previously available which is percentages claims Mr real seven point one. All right is miss Coleman here today. Okay. Hang on just a. Miss Coleman. Yes Sir all right you would identify yourself for the record please. Sir. Would you identify yourself state your name. Now The Coleman is. Miss Coleman up you would if you'd like to give a brief statement to the members of this committee about the base of your claim we don't have a lot of time so if you could keep it brief we certainly appreciate that we have other matters on the agenda today but if you'd like to make a brief statement we're going to hear you out. Yes Sir Red Hendrix law firm had the case and there was filed in. February two thousand fourteen. And then he none served. And. I found out about the Arkansas state claims commission so I have filed the claim narrowed did December twenty second. Two thousand fourteen and they dismiss the big because they say they didn't have jurisdiction. Of the. And Then I tried the. By with me at center on the of doctors insurance and days sent me out a letter stating that. It would already litigated. And that. I couldn't ballot Klein. And so I'm trying to pan out I couldn't we file a claim on the doctors and shall. And why did the Arkansas state claims commission say they didn't have jurisdiction. Okay thank you miss Coleman this Mr Hendricks to your attorney. Some of that law firm. I had brain handed but he just left the case okay he when a noncertified he's the terminator's representation is represented anymore now okay. I don't have an attorney coach okay. Cervidae everything after that. Sorry to say that that that references the previous claim which has been fully litigated and decided by this commission that that dismissal by the claims commission was up held by this body previously. And that. The claims commission statutes do not permit three a filing a new claim to re open and re litigate a final decision okay in. Ballinger you're recognized skews me sir it was never litigated because the Arkansas state claims commission barred us from the hearing. It is common what this is I mean I know that what you're looking for the answers and I hate it the people who may very well have a a valid valid complaint and I don't we don't know anything about the. The merit of your of your claim but end up getting caught in the system and so you keep going and running into a dead end of people saying yes but you're in the wrong place yes but you're in the wrong place or just dismissing your case and I hate that for you bill what I would say is that if you have a valid claim against the doctors Insurance if if if you're not outside statue limitations all those things would probably be something that you need to sit down with the with another attorney see if you have a valid claim if you do they they may be able to help you give you some counsel so I'd look for somebody who can give you a free consultation to sit down evaluate your claim and see if you have it but I'm afraid that your once again and I and I hate this for you yes your you've come to the wrong place like we're not in a position because this is already been litigated to be a and an already went through this committee in order we're not in a position to be able to grant you anything unless it's committee decides differently I think that's where we're at so the only thing I can recommend that I think could give you any value is try to get it attorney sit down evaluate your your your your potential liability or the potential liability and just see if there's something else out there and that that would be my recommendation so you saying that the circuit court. You didn't have jurisdiction miss. Stephanie flowers said last time at the hearing that the court don't have jurors the. No me either there's a certain amount of sovereign immunity where where the court wouldn't but I don't know I don't know much about your your case against individual doctors maybe there would be something that could be a claim so I'm not the only thing I'm saying is that from my perspective this body you know this committee is not a passenger that what you're saying what I'm saying I have wasted your of law at the circuit court D. R. of peels court dismissed the. When the of peels court was on spring break. Of ma'am what I would say is the only advice I think would be sound advice is to sit down with an attorney to evaluate your case and do it sooner rather than later because of time and ends up making where even if you're inside states limitations you will be outside eventually so I would I would sit down I try to call somebody will give a free consultation so down with them and see if there's a if there is any valid claims of ads that's probably only good advice I can give you. Okay all right. Of. Excuse me Sir but I've tried to file a claim with the hospital on the doctors in shown. And days send me out this letter telling me it's been already litigated in the courts. And if the courts don't have jurisdiction how would it litigated. Yes ma'am I'm about what we're we're probably in a position where where usually get with an attorney to do that but that that's an insurance basically provider giving you information saying that they should have to pay anything that's as very standards so you get with an attorney who can represent you can look at the case and see if there may be something there because I wouldn't rely on that because they're they're obviously not going to be in a position where they're going to volunteer so get get with an attorney who can cook consulting on okay miss Coleman we thank you for being here today and and I agree with reference or Senator Ballenger on on what he's told you have members are there any questions or discussion. I have a motion is this claim which was denied dismissed by the commission. All right I have a motion to affirm the commission's decision their second. I have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed motion carries. Thank you Miss common okay. Okay all right next we have cable Delaplaine verses university of Arkansas system. Mr second could you give a brief description of the claim. Claiming Caleb double plane sought nine million dollars in damages that allegedly arose during the time he was employed at the facilities management department of the university of Arkansas Fayetteville claiming disclosed in his complaint that during the course of the employment he raised several issues with the superiors including the behavior various unnamed coworkers or supervisors as well as high temperatures humidity and the possibility of indoor heat stress claim alleged that he was subsequently terminated unlawfully and without reasonable cause on December tenth two thousand nineteen respondent moved to dismiss the case noting the claimant was an at will employee such that respondent can terminate him without reasonable costs in addition responded also argued that the claims commission lacked jurisdiction over claims arising under the low unemployment benefits Clement responded clarifying that his complaint contained claims unlawful termination unlawful harassment of violation of this health and safety the claims commission enters an order dismissing the claim pursuant to Arkansas rules of civil procedure twelve B. six concerning claimant's unlawful termination claim the commission found the claimant had not stated facts upon which relief can be granted specifically the Commission reason that claim it was an at will employee and had not stated any facts to support a claim for unlawful termination to the extent the claimant was attempting to claim that employees of the respondent violated his rights or the respondent violated federal regulations the commission found that those claims were outside of its jurisdiction pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section nineteen ten tool for climate now appeals. Served as the commission of anything that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions okay any questions or discussion for members. Singh Nanda have a motion is this claim. Motor firm okay I have a motion to affirm the decision of the commission I have a second all those in favor say aye hi all those opposed. Motion carries. Connection with the Dale Adams versus Arkansas state crime laboratory this does give you would give a description declined please. Claimant Dale Adams alleged that he sent an email to the Arkansas state crime laboratory seeking assistant with tests seeking assistance with testing food and consumer items that were being poisoned by federal in Arkansas officials claimant sought no monetary award but wanted some items tested so that he could no. What he was being poisoned with and he could prosecute the people involved the state crime laboratory moved to dismiss the claim arguing that claim that was not entitled to the laboratory services ACL contended that the plain language of Arkansas Code intended section twelve twelve three oh one stated that S. C. L. and a court shall offer services to law enforcement since claimant was not a law enforcement agency asio argued that he was not entitled to its services in response to SCL's motion to dismiss claimant sent correspondence to the Commission noting the legislature should review this issue to determine whether a new law should be passed making a S. C. L. services available to individuals the claims commission enters an order granting a SCL's motion to dismiss pursuant to Arkansas rules of civil procedure twelve B. six finding the claimant had not stated any facts to support a claim against and see out the commission also noted that it had neither the authority to direct a CL to test items nor the authority to direct the General Assembly to amend specific statutes or enact new laws claim it now appeals. Mr B. doesn't mention anything that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions okay any questions or discussion for members. C. nine two I have a motion to approve the commission the decision or firm the decision the commission. Are your motion representative Jane second Senator Ballenger all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Motion carries. Next we have. The all right this is the case I think it was set for special order today. This would be Yang for a special minister of the state and Lee Yang verses the Arkansas department of emergency management I believe that we have witnesses here in parties if you're here regarding this case please come forward. Okay I know we I believe it Mr Stein here is that correct Mr Stein right if you would go ahead and turn your microphone on identify yourself for the for the record yeah Carter Stein I represent day Yang Yang who is also here that. Okay thank you and Sir would you please identify yourself. Vincent Francis assistant training journal you're on behalf of the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. Okay thank you. members as you know we've set this sensually is a special order today this is a claim that we. I got. into for about ten or fifteen minutes it seems like during the last hearing we weren't able to finish it and it's a very serious claim we want to give it the time attention that it deserves and so we have the rest the meeting to deal with this particular claim. as opposed to having missed Desikan give a recitation of the facts I thank you that was given last time we heard from both Department mercy management Mr Stein briefly but what I'd like to do is Mr Steiner like to begin with you if you would like to give a statement of your case and kind of a summary of what's happened the facts that underlie the claim that you've made how we've ended up here where we are today and what you're asking for I think that would be helpful so we'll begin with you and I can do that about ten minutes so our first I just want to thank the subcommittee for allowing us the opportunity to come back and more fully present our case again I'm here today representing dower young Yang was in the audience Mr Yang is that an interesting journey through his life here's a cardiovascular surgeon and his native China but he was persecuted because of his Christian faith and he applied for and eventually received asylum here in the United States and so we started a new life and started a new family but that new life took a tragic turn in twenty thirteen with a mishandled nine one one call and I started him on an eight year legal journey that brings us here today so the first thing I want to do with the start of this presentation is I wanna make very clear that Mr Yang despite receiving a judgment against the little rock nine one one call taker. is not asking the state to pay seventeen point six million dollars. I have Mister James legal journey began in twenty thirteen with the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of his five year old son Lee or Leo as he was called by his parents and his school classmates. in this case stems from this nine one one call. Your words and that. Okay where you that. If degree curve. Identical it. Nine one one call was badly mishandled and there was a significantly delayed response I in short Candace Middleton the little rock nine one one call taker failed to notify water rescue or police about the incident however she did notify the ambulance comes. And ma'am spent nearly fifteen minutes on the phone with miss U. S. our car slowly submerged in the pond it is one thing to read the newspaper the operator staying calm over the screaming coming from the sun in the backseat keeps telling her that help is on the way it's quite another to listen to the chilling audio of two people drowning. the audio clip in the last thirty seconds of recording were included with the materials we submitted to this committee but out of respect for Mr Yang I will not play that audio for you today. From the start of litigation City of Little Rock claimed municipal immunity. The state has immunity built into the constitution but the state has also created the claims commission. see also isn't in Arkansas including the city of Iraq had municipal immunity by statute but there are exceptions to municipal limited cities can have liability insurance cities can have claims commissions and then cities can also be indemnified by the state of Arkansas when cities act on behalf of the state. In twenty fifteen we are hearing passed away. he spent the last two years of his life are going back and forth between Arkansas children's hospital. And the Arkansas pediatric disorder that same year Mr Yang amended his lawsuit in circuit court to add the state of Arkansas is the defendant he cited the indemnification statute the state responded inclined sovereign immunity and the state also argued that to the extent that a judgment in favor of Mr Yang and against the city would fall under the indemnification statute the claims commission not the circuit court would have jurisdiction so shorter the state argued that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction and that the claim against the state belonged in the claims commission. And so in twenty sixteen Mr Yang filed a lawsuit before the claims commission. Mister banks claims commission complaint cited word for word the state's jurisdictional arguments of circuit court. Over the next three years Mr Yang's case went back and forth from the Arkansas from the circuit court to the Arkansas Supreme Court twice during this period of time he also received his judgment against miss Middleton. Ultimately the Arkansas Supreme Court found at the City of Little Rock had immunity. Because this citadel right did not have liability insurance and the City of Little Rock did not have its own claims commission. Because Mr Jane had no more options in circuit court. Or the Arkansas Supreme Court this case before the claims commission which had been held in abeyance for most of the previous three years was set for a hearing. In response to a hearing begins that the state filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the circuit court had jurisdiction of indemnification climb back in twenty fifteen effectively the state was now arguing that the claims commission couldn't hear the case because the circuit court had jurisdiction back in twenty fifteen and had already decided the issue. The state told the circuit court one thing in twenty fifteen and told the claims commission something completely different and twenty twenty. You can certainly see how Mr Yang at this point feels like the game has been rigged against. At the claims commission hearing Yang argued that under the indemnification statute the City of Little Rock had been called upon to assist the state and its employees and their nine one one mission. Yang's father argued that Candace Middleton's actions were performed under the supervision of David Maxwell who served as the state's nine one one coordinator. A state nine one one coordinator Max will applied for federal grant funding actual stated that the governor had appointed him as the state's single officer service coordinator of nine one one integrated service implementation. As part of the federal grant requirements Max will an Adam put together a state nine one one point. And as a result of the state's application for federal funding or grant of nearly six hundred thousand dollars was awarded to the state of Arkansas by the US department transportation the grant letter states thank you for your interest in the grant program we congratulate Arkansan taken this life saving step and appreciate all you have done to provide the citizens with efficient and effective nine one one services we are confident that Arkansas utilizes grant funds successfully helping emergency responders increase their nine one one capabilities for the welfare of your citizens. And the best evidence of a state wide integrated nine one one service is the tried to call itself. Yes okay well. Nine one one again a lady in a small child in the car that had slid off into a pond for orbit just east of Rushmore at capitol hill in that point. Pulaski County took the initial nine one one call and transferred it to little rock why because it is an integrated state wide nine one one network with a single nine one one coordinator at the top. Now state argued that David Maxwell did not supervise Candace mettle but the state is trying to re direct supervision into the statute statute says supervision it does not say direct supervision. At the last the last time where before you the state argued that if a an award was made to Mr Yang that it would open the floodgates for clients our first office indemnification statue has been on the books for many years and hasn't been out of Russia flood of of indemnification claims filed against the state the second thing I would add is if you're concerned about opening Pandora's box roof or open the floodgates you could very easily amended the statute to include the word direct you could change it so that it says direct supervision you could define what direct supervision meant but as the statute currently rigid just as supervision which can be interpreted in its broadest most general sense. Despite the language of the complaint filed by Yang in the arguments put forth the claims commission ruled in favor of the state. But any sort of the claims commission clearly signal that it wanted specific guidance from the legislature in this matter. And so now Mr Yang is before you. This is not his last stop on his eight year legal journey. And Mr Yang asked that this committee which has been asked by the claims commission to do so service the conscience of the State. In closing there been multiple headlines in this case and there may well be another one tomorrow. Mr Yang ask that the story be that this committee serving as the conscience of the great state of Arkansas. Find it given the tragedy that occurred and the long legal journey that Mr Yang has been through the prostate is decided to make some award to Mr Yang. Maybe not a ward is one percent or two percent or three percent of the judgment amount or maybe it is an amount equal to the federal grant money received by the state. Award of this amount does not make Mr yancoal for what is in what he has and but it serves as notice that this legislature values life. And seeks to right the wrongs suffered by its citizens and the alternative Mr Yang asked this committee reversed the dismissal by the claims commission and send the case back to the commission for a four here thank you again for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you Mr Stein I appreciate the presentation members are there any questions of Mr Stein. Like Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. Same correctly I guess sorry this is to welcome all. I love the graphic that you had the two fingers pointing with because that it that was exactly what crossed my mind on this of. The merits it appears that the merits of of Mr Yang's case have never been GKB is that my understanding you basically had this we can't we can't hear this because of sovereign immunity gotta go claims commission then once you got claims commission we already heard at the circuit court is that a synopsis of kind of where this is. I think that's a very fair synopsis over his last eight years the case has been moved around like on that legal maze I showed you it's all been procedural grounds there's never been a hearing kind of on the substantive nature of the client and you recognize that should we refer this back to the claims commission and say hold a substantive hearing and they might say you know all these things happen but you're still barred by the the sovereign immunity ruling and some other things to actually get something their their sympathies or even the fault that was found with the actual dispatcher not withstanding you your your client record recognized that do not absolutely absolutely and we've been on this journey for eight years and we're prepared to go further if we if we need to but Mr Yang want to be here today to kind of have this hearing you know there's a chance this is his last day in court so to speak and so he want to be here for that and we're prepared for whatever decisions commitment. Mr Stein I'm not. I'm sitting here sort of an it's when you know we're not exactly jurors but I do think that we do have an obligation to at least allow someone to state their full case and instead of it being summarily dismissed on jurisdictional grounds which are. Then I said at least I'm again I I don't have a. Ultimate decision on the result but I certainly believe that people need to have their we say day in court or day and claimed or wherever I but I just wanted to verify that I'm not missing anything that that. A review of fax has not been done and that the the only thing that was done was a circuit court judgment against the individual in their personal capacities that is that why am I understand it correctly that's correct senator Johnson okay. Mister chairman I'm of I will wait till proper time when given ordered by my chairman that the person but I would have a motion at the proper time on this thank you. Thank you senator Johnson Speaker Shepherd you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman and I had one or two questions but then Senate the answers to senator Johnson's questions actually prompted a few others. The. There was a judgment entered at the circuit court court level so I take it that you actually were able to present the facts of the case such that a judgment was entered. That's correct once once the city and the other employees have been dismissed it left miss Middleton alone in the case and that point default judgment was entered against her and we received a judgment based on a motion for summary judgment and then with regard if the question as to actually having at a day in court so to speak on this indemnification issue I believe last time in answer to one of my questions if you compare this to essentially a a order of dismissal in circuit court where the decision was made based on the pleadings that were presented to the commission itself is that correct and I guess that would be for both the commission and for yourself. The dismissal was entered he's me the dismissal by the claims commission was entered on the pleadings yes Sir okay and then the the question the questions I originally had were just to be clear. And you highlight some statements from maybe the state's pleadings or may have been in the order but to understand this issue relating the claims commission. The ultimately I take it the Supreme Court allowed this matter to proceed in circuit court. And so the issue now is the indemnification issue you obtained a judgment the city will not has no ability or means to pay it and there for years the only issue is that sentiment indemnification issue was the indemnification issue litigated or discussed at all in the circuit court for appellate proceedings in the underlying case. Great question Speaker Shepherd Again back in twenty fifteen we added the state as a defendant and then the state filed a motion to dismiss citing jurisdictional grounds from there the state was dismissed by the circuit court That issue was has has not been discussed further into we came back to the claims commission in twenty twenty. Any other questions any other members with any other questions. I have a few Mr France. I just want to say aye I'm deeply troubled by. What I think I saw earlier where it appears that the state of Arkansas argued at one point that the state of Arkansas couldn't it was not liable couldn't be sued and that the appropriate jurisdiction for this to be heard was the claims commission. And then when this action got into the claims commission the state of Arkansas argued know that this was a heard in circuit court this was all done appropriately in circuit court and to me it's the state of Arkansas talking out of both sides of their mouth and you know I understand the recisions about sovereign immunity that came down but it sounds like you make whatever argument is convenient for you at the time to try to avoid liability and so can you explain that please. Yeah absolutely and. The let me clarify that's not the grounds that the claims commission dismissed in fact and what even jurisdictional grounds the claims commission dismissed this claim because they found based upon the pleadings taken on and light most favorable to the yanks. That. The fact is they let age did not warrant immunity of the by the state of Arkansas under the indemnification or did not want indication by the state of Arkansas under the specific statute Mr president so you're saying that's the claims commission's ruling is that correct that is correct the claims commission ruled. I was not even based upon that that argument that we raised okay so that argument is based on the issue of indemnification and I get that correctly. Yes okay and that's based on the wording of the statute about direct supervision is that where that comes from yes that was the basis of the claims commission's ruling that is correct okay in the you have the decision was made after hearing was also held the answer Senator shepherds question right but would you agree with me that the statute says supervision it does not say direct supervision and that is something that would be open to interpretation I understand the claims commission had their interpretation of it but that's supervision is open to interpretation is not. You. Donor students orange thing in court German. The radical yes it is open ended third patient I think supervision has to be more The the what the Yankees are arguing that and I understand that your position because you represent the state of Arkansas but this is been appealed from the claims commission to us so that decision lies with us today am I correct in that. Yes. At no problem. I get it okay thank you but Mr Stein do you have any comments with respect to what Mister France had to say about those arguments in with any points of clarification there from you. I just want to clarify that I mean Mr Francis corrected that the claims commission order. Says deals with supervision but they want specific guidance from the legislature so that's why we're here what I was doing was pointing out that. That the argument was made that the crosstalk argument was made in writing about the circuit court and the claims commission the fact that the claims commission didn't focus on that in dismissing the claim that's not really something yanking control. Okay and so what I'd like to hear from you at this point is I want you to make the best argument that you have the maybe you I'm sure you probably argue to the claims commission about why the state of Arkansas under that statute with regard to supervision has some liability here I understand that the state of Arkansas denies any and all liability they say the class the statute that with the way that it's written what does not obligate the State for identification purposes I get all of that but I wanna hear your best argument as to why the state has some liability here. Right and so we've we've in our pleadings and in the arguments we made we have shown that there is some state involvement in the nine one one system right I mean that we have created a statewide system we have told the federal government that we have a statewide system and so David Max was the head of that system right and so. He has general supervision of the entire nine one one system. He or he was not a direct supervisor miss Middleton right and we heard that last time you didn't hire her he didn't fire her even trying or that's all spare but he does have control of the entire system so that's one percent or two percent or three percent there is some level of super general supervision that's involved. Okay thank you and if I may I would use example of always wear this mask when I'm for you guys this is my little rock Dodgers mascot a coach of youth baseball organization right so I'm the manager of that organization no I may not necessarily coach every team that's in that organization I mean not every single one of those players but they're within my organization and so I ask I feel like I have supervision of all those children and all those parents and I would just say oh that's I don't coach that team I don't have any responsibility here I take full responsibility for the entire organization I understand thank you representative Ferguson you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair yeah yes a quick question for care of clarification. The claims commission heard this case of a tie to the German from the attorney general's office what did they hear just a portion of it for particular segment of it. Your honor again I apologize I'm into the oil Representative they heard what I believe is at the heart of this is the state responsible for the negligent acts of the Little Rock employee. There was no arguments present on both sides so. And that's the heart of it and so yes then they heard. What is at the heart of the matter was there a full blown trial no Sir. That's my question was not a full blown case in just a second. Correct. Yes thank you thank you Mr in an apartment I add. Just very quick service dining and dancing I'm gonna let you respond but miss or be indicated she wanted to address that first so we'll let her in and then we'll come to you yes Sir and. This a motion filed by the department of emergency management is what was heard by the claims commission and and during the scope of that hearing the commission reviewed all of the facts pled by the claimant Mr Yang regarding the issue of supervision The commissioners got to ask questions of the parties and I got here the arguments of the parties and after reviewing all of those facts that were played by the claimant in hearing argument asking questions the commission found that there were no facts pled to support a claim that the that a nine one coordinator was supervising the City of Little Rock dispatcher that was what the commission found. And the commission held that without just direction from the legislature that it would not make the jump from the existence of a nine one one coordinator to the conclusion that the state was supervising all dispatchers and emergency responders. Again for the indemnification statute to apply the City of Little Rock dispatcher had to have been supervised by a state official and so this is this came before the commission on a legal question whether not indemnification applies. If the top. Mr Steiner response I'll be very brief what I would say this was a motion for judgment on the pleadings which is the very bottom level then you would have in circuit court then you would have a motion for summary judgment and then you would have a full blown trial so this was kind of just on the very lowest level. It's how I would describe. Representative person you're recognized thank you Mister chair just one final question to Mr Stein following up on with senator Johnson said so which you're asking. Is for the claims commission to hear a full blown. A situation of this claim is this what I'm hearing I am I am correct. The that's correct I think we're asking two things I think first were saying look we don't want to seventeen point six million dollar judgment we're not asking the legislature for that but. We we would ask for maybe one percent or two percent or three percent about a war alternatively we would ask to go back to the claims commission and have a full hearing or for trial before the claims commission understanding get can I just what will follow Mr. You're recognized ribs and burgers so understand what senator Johnson to you earlier you could get zero going before the claims commission right. Okay or yes yes what we realize is certainly a possibility. Thank you Mr. Okay are there any other questions for members. Any other questions for members saying no further questions of members is there any discussion. So earlier we had a ms Coleman who is in here and choose to pursue stock right it and I I have no idea what the merits of her case is we know a little more about this case but but truly I mean like you know in twenty minutes you're not there's a trial that goes on that we really get all the facts and all that but but what is clear is that she's sort of stuck in the system and I and I heard from Mr Yang because I feel like that's the same place right where he is sort of stuck in the system it's a you know the there's the saying the bad facts make bad laws will ban laws make that for better results in and we we have a situation was what's already munity that is is so widespread and and basically absolute that it it it makes it were citizens have a hard time getting getting redress and I do I recognize that we are sort of the concert we're the ones that keep people from showing up with pitch forks and and and porches right you know that's that's what we do and so what so you know I definitely have sympathy for you by the same time we also are kind of rule of law like I don't want to expose the state which is the state has no money zero money it's all some taxpayers money right I don't expose taxpayers to more obligations than what is what is really necessary expense without having the debate of either constitutional amendment or the debate of a law change and so I mean I I you know I've this around I talked a lot of people ultimately will be the will of the committee but what I do want to say is like anything that we do here it's got to be clear that that you know we are not saying that the law is acts we maybe send the conscious is the acts that we don't want people shop pitchforks but will ultimately would release of my mind and eyes I see zero liability simply because not because we don't shouldn't because justice or good policy with but because I feel like in this case the law really dictates that. Members of the committee but also kind of an explanation. Thank you Senator Ballinger. Okay any other discussion. Is there a motion. Senator Johnson you're recognized for motion. Mr chairman of. I move that the. State award to. Mystery gang or the a state of leave you hanging the amount of one hundred thousand dollars. Okay. We have a motion Is there second. During a discussion on the motion. Okay what. I'm I'm going to have some discussion on the motion Since you made the motion wanted to go ahead. Thank you Mr I'm not a lawyer up surrounded by brilliant ones that are my friends and colleagues Mr Stein although I did grow up in a legal family and David had a jurist for a father. he's to say sometimes of bad sell much better good lawsuit an act in March that also not going to try the merits or demerits of our sovereign immunity situation in Arkansas I think we have kicked that can down the road in the General Assembly in the people ultimately may have to deal with that and maybe a constitutional amendment but we're not here to talk about that today I hope this is a step in the right direction it is that thing you talk about where the conscience of the people and and the and the government I hope that would be adequate but I this is probably not fair but it's certainly not unfair and I I just think it's a good motion I hope that everyone could support that thank you Mr. Thank you senator Johnson you know personally I'd like to see this. Dollar amount much more severe agreed yes situation I understand we have to balance the interest here given the fact that we do we do have sovereign immunity and status of the law the wording of that statute again if this were my motion it would be a lot higher but we have a motion we have a second. So with that a motion and second all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. All right the ayes have it motion carries. That includes a our agenda this meeting is adjourned thank you.