JBC-Claims

Archers warm. But I don't mind getting to see. We do have a decent size agenda this morning and we also budget coming in here at a eight thirty this morning so we do need to make sure we get through things pretty quickly and. It was recommended to me to just kind of let everybody knows sort of the the claims commission when when a person brought their claim and have the case heard before the claims commission is really the opportunity to present your case when we come here it's our job to sort of be over Sattar or to look over what happens with the claims commission so just just so you know I don't want to be rude but if somebody is is up here and and it is they give their testimony and it's taking a long time we're going to try to cut that short so we'll be able to get out of here at eight thirty so just let everybody know I don't I don't wanna seem rude but at same time we do need to get out of here as quickly as we can. So having said that my culture represented guys would you have anything to add. No. Okay. Well let's go ahead and get started. So the the first one will start with the REISSUANCE warrants. So more ms desk in if you don't mind give me a brief explanation will start with the wealth that case. This is case number two one zero two eight two well bath LLC versus the Arkansas department of Human Services this is an unpaid claim bill claim father will battle seeing the amount of four hundred forty eight thousand six hundred thirty six dollars and twenty seven cents it's for pharmacy laboratory another medical services rendered to juveniles in the custody of DHS Division of Youth Services DHS admitted liability in full and the claims commission unanimously away allowed in a ward of the entire amount saw. Okay do I have any questions about this claim. Mr really have anything to add to that. No Sir okay I see no questions of. This new system so but it doesn't seem like I have anybody has any questions so do I see a motion for approval okay. I have a motion the second. All in favor say aye. Oppose. That claim is what is approved. Okay the next one is the the Methodist healthcare first DHS. This is an unpaid bill claim filed by Methodist le bonheur healthcare in the amount of fifty one thousand four hundred and eight dollars for medical services rendered to a juvenile who was in the H. S. custody DHS admitted partial liability in the amount of twenty seven thousand five hundred forty dollars based upon the length of the in patient stay ordered by the court. After giving Methodist fifteen days to respond the claims commission unanimously allowed in a ward of the partial amount recommended by DHS. The server you have anything to add yes Sir. If you have any questions regarding this claim. I think the question I have a motion for approval. I know the second the second all favor say aye. Opposed. Right the motion is that is affirmed. Okay under Franklin Sebastian reverses the Department of military. This is an unpaid bill claims filed by Franklin Sebastian PWA in the amount of twenty nine thousand ninety two dollars and ninety six cents which represents property damage to a water line an employee of the Arkansas department of military struck a vent pipe and caused a large rupture in whole within the water line the Department admitted liability in full and the claims commission unanimously allowed an award of the entire amount sought. The server you have anything Mr. Okay Gotta motion of you to affirm to approve it the drive second. All favor say aye. Those are that is approved I miss the desk and if you don't mind number four. This is this is direct national insurance company versus the Arkansas insurance department this is a claim for re issuance of an outdated warrant which was issued by the insurance department in the amount of two hundred and seventeen thousand nine hundred forty seven dollars on March twentieth two thousand nineteen the warrant was not timely presented for redemption and the claim that requested that it be re issued the claims commission unanimously allowed an award of the entire amount sought. Mr be anything that this act okay I have a motion. Any questions no questions of emotions Senator Hester of second. I got a second all favor say aye. Opposed. that they claim is approved okay so we're going to move on to awarded claims this is a claim that's awarded and not being contested this desk and if you don't mind if you give a brief explanation of the tenant construction. Climate Tanner construction sought two million four hundred and fifty fifteen thousand three hundred and seventy seven dollars and sixty three cents from the Arkansas department of transportation for breach of contract claim is a highway contractor and had entered into a contract with the department to construct a new bridge over the White River in Jackson County Arkansas and constructing the bridge claimant had to erect here's to support the superstructure of the bridge of the twenty peers involved in the project appears on either side of the river pier one and pier two where the peers at issue in this claim claimant explain that your one and peer to have had to be driven deep into the earth and rock well below the bed of the White River in order to erect the two peers claimant had to construct coffer dams using she calls for walls while constructing the peer to Crawford employment encountered subsurface obstruction the damage the cofferdam namely a large piece of timber and a large metal pipe. RT's agreed that these obstructions created a differing site conditions under the contract and the claimant was entitled to additional compensation and working days however claimant contended that responded to night that there was a slight difference I condition for about a year. Parties disagreed as to the calculation of the additional compensation and working days to climate respondent contended that the additional compensation of five hundred nine thousand nine hundred sixteen dollars and thirty two cents already paid to claim it as well as the thirty one additional working days already returned were sufficient to address the differing site conditions claimant contended that it was entitled to additional compensation which should be calculated using the measured mile approach the measured mile approach would compare the cost and time involved in the construction of pure one which was not impacted by the different site conditions with the cost and time involved and contain the construction of peer to which was impacted by this eye condition after hearing the claims commission enters an order awarding claimant one million two hundred and twenty one thousand six hundred fifty nine dollars and thirty two cents after post hearing briefing by both parties on the award of additional work days the commission enters an order awarding claimant an additional two hundred and sixty seven thousand dollars and two hundred sixty seven thousand five hundred dollars which represented a hundred and seven days of improperly assessed liquidated damages so the total amount awarded was one million four hundred eighty nine thousand. One million four hundred and eighty nine thousand one hundred fifty nine dollars and thirty two cents the commission referred the award to the General Assembly for placement on an appropriation bill pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section nineteen ten to fifteen be. Thank you miss Herby everything that no Sir I'm happy to take any questions okay don't have any questions from the committee Senate Hester C.. All right you're recognized. Thank you I mean I know it sounds a little simplistic they ran to a piece of wood in a private to commit extra hundred seventy days and costs two million dollars means that that the basis of this. Yes Sir. But that that the simplification based on the testimony. Only the Department something like that works you know I guess. R. S. is pretty incredible okay thank. Any other questions. at three nine do I have a motion from the Committee. The motion motion to approve of a second. All in favor say aye. Oppose the motion as per. And so missed desk and if you don't mind with the were picking up on. The. This is claim number one nine one one nine eight Christopher Burke's verses the Arkansas department of Human Services Clement Christopher Burke's sought six thousand six hundred and eight dollars and fifty cents an attorney's fees and costs arising out of freedom of information act lawsuit which she filed against DHS on behalf of his client read brewer paragraph twenty nine of the final order issued in the case stated that and I quote as this action is a proceeding against the state of Arkansas this court is statutorily without jurisdiction to consider any issues relating to prevailing party and the possible award of attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff and quote DHS moved to dismiss the claim arguing first the claimant's request for attorneys fees and costs was untimely second that claim it lacked standing third the claimant fail to state sufficient facts upon which relief may be granted and fort the claimant fail to state a factual basis for any recognized cause of action Clement responded arguing that he could not have lawfully filed a claim for attorney's fees until the court made a final disposition on his appeal Clement also stated that his client reader had assigned his interest and fees to the claimant. After hearing oral arguments the claims commission denied the department's motion to dismiss the claim the commission found that the claim was timely filed with that the underlying court orders contained no rulings as to whether the claimant had substantially was a substantial prevailing party the commission also found the claimant had provided no documentation of the assignment of interest from his client. Commission hence place the claim in abeyance for ninety days to give both parties the opportunity to seek further findings from the circuit court. The commission also requested that the claimant filed the assignment documentation within ten days claimant subsequently filed a notice of assignment the notice stated the claimant was the attorney in the underlying lawsuit and that the client assigned his claim for attorney's fees to the claimant claimant also filed an order from the circuit court stating that claims client read brewer had substantially prevailed in the lawsuit pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section twenty five nineteen one oh seven after the hearing the claims commission held the case in the band's again directing climate to submit reverse signed assignment of interest and attorney's fees and costs within ten days Clement submitted the documentation and the commission enters an order awarding claimants six thousand six hundred eight dollars and fifty cents an attorney's fees and costs respondent DHS appeals. Mr really have anything to add to that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions okay is there any questions for Mister B. from the Committee. Senator Hester you're recognized. I have a motion property in okay. at this point I I think it probably appropriate for DHS to to come and give the explanation of why they feel like this item should been appealed so if somebody from DHS wants to come down. What you state your case. It yes but say if you don't. I appreciate your you have the ID don't want introduce yourself what you're you're on top of that it's my first yes of mine good morning my name is rich Rosen I am deputy counsel in charge of litigation this is David were for whose one who's an attorney specialist with the Department we're here today on our appeal and I'll let David explain the reasons but while we while we fully respect the claims commission we do we feel in this particular case that they Made in air and we're asking for correction of that okay I appreciate that ms rose are you going to be answering questions of your if you have a seat down there. Thank you had so much Mr what was your name again David I'm sorry David Warford okay Mr Warford if you don't mind if you will we're here to hear your appeal. Yes Sir and basically that the Department appeals the space. As if awarding attorneys fees and costs this would rise to a windfall if there was an error by the circuit court in releasing these documents we know that from the appeal which was dismissed as moot because of another case they indicated that the documents that were released were actually investigative and should not have been released because in this case the employee was not suspended or terminated based upon those documents so they should have been withheld under the for you statute. Furthermore the court did find that it didn't have any authority to award the substantially prevailing party. In over a year later after the claims commission indicated in its ruling that there was no findings on the substantial prevailing party. It did give leave Mr Burks went and filed a. A motion in the close case after had been dismissed on appeal and indicated that the commission reinvested jurisdiction back to the court. To find if there was a substantial prevailing party and based upon that the court issued an order that second order findings prevailing party it again an error and so the agency Strongly feels in this case that it would amount to a windfall based upon the documents were released in air and shouldn't be rewarded further for air when it they should not have been released in the first place. Thank. You have anything else to add to that. You just bring your. Thank you just brief I just wanna make sure that so as Mr Warford explained at the time of the hearing on the lawsuit in the circuit court judge fox found in his order that he was unable to I didn't have jurisdiction determine prevailing party the case went to the appellate courts it was determined to be moved and as determined and with no exception that would sometimes be allowed for mood cases for them to decide and it was decided the in that in that opinion the appellate court said we just decided this issue and so now we know that it was decided that performance and evaluation records with where there's no of a fair hearing and know what Judy cation are not subject to disclosure under the freedom of information act. And so therefore those were the same type of records that were ordered to be disclosed here oddly. The court the circuit court somehow after. A year gave an inconsistent issued an order that was inconsistent with its order the original order and and without explanation as to the jurisdiction which we believe was in there and so that's why one of those two reasons we're asking it be reversed okay thank you any question for DHS for the committee. Mr Speaker you're recognized thank you so I just to be clear those are the those are the two things about one of the basis for the appeal today is that correct. Yes because I'm noting in here that that for example if I'm reading this correctly the attorney involved action there was actually no money expended on actual attorney's fees but that's not that had that is not the basis for your appeal in front of us today are you you're not contesting the ability to ask for those fees your respective whether they were actually incurred or subject to a an engagement between a a individual in an attorney. No Sir not at this time okay. All right any other questions from the committee. All right you are dismissed under the my my guess is that Mr Burch you would like to come and give his side of the story. Thank you. Good morning Mister chair may proceed yes you may if you don't mind introduce yourself for the record good morning committee members my name is Chris Bourque son the claimant in this case I was awarded a claim in attorney's fees by the claim Commission I just three points for the Committee briefly in a joint budget is coming in the first point at a war my razor back mass this morning they they beat Alabama in basketball last night and. The reason I bring that up is because what you just heard was essentially the argument that actually Alabama was the better team essentially the argument that just got me actually we should have won where's the the legal argument all of the arguments the DHS raise just now they raise with a circuit court judge they raise with the court of appeals and they also raised with the governor appointed claims commission Sylvester Smith is an attorney there several this is not sort of the old BT appointee claim commission all of these arguments were made at the claims commission and the claims commission held a three hour hearing evaluated all of those arguments and found them without merit said to come in now and say actually Alabama was the better team unfortunately the people that looked at this closely the claims commission said those weren't good arguments. Secondly the the second point DHS raise some issues and Speaker Shepherd had a question about the procedure history everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course you'll you'll get that here a lot but unfortunately what a lot of their argument right now was not procedurally correct so I'm not here to argue the procedure but it is not correct that the court of appeals denied the case it's not correct that of the court was without jurisdiction reopen the case as those things are just not factually correct again everyone's entitled to their opinion Alabama may have been the better team but factually Arkansas when the game last night factually the circuit court in this case said that my client was a prevailing party and the statute is entitled to attorney's fees and that's a third point counsel for DHS again they raise all of these arguments with a claim Commission the claims commission had a thorough hearing asked all of these questions but that the third one is he he mentioned a windfall and I thought that was interesting the four year statute in is important for transparency and it provides attorney's fees in the statute so you know represented Gallo aids and don Trinity or attorneys I took this case on a contingency fee basis knowing that that fee provision was in the statute sent to Shepherd to Speaker shepherds question was there money exchanger the the case I took for reaper was for free knowing that we thought we had a good case and we thought we would be awarded fees because of sovereign immunity the claims commission is the one that awards fees when it's against the state so it's not a win fill it's six thousand dollars on the circuit court case an appeal that's well below market rates you know you get you could easily get twenty or twenty five thousand dollars on a case like this the claims commission examined all of this they examined my invoice. they looked at this and they determined it wasn't a windfall is actually a very reasonable rate that under the law we should have prevailed and again to come in now and say Alabama was the better team that's that's just not what the the score of the game was so happy to answer any questions. There are any questions from the committee. Right to a non prescription testimony. Senator Hester did you have a motion still. I make a motion that we amend the ruling of the claims commission or thousand dollars. Gathers motion the table do I have a second. All right I have a second motion the second any discussion on the motion. All right so you know discussion on the motion we're going to just so that everybody's paying attention we're going to move with the motion is basically is to amend that decision and to reduce it to a thousand dollars total is that right Senator Hester. Okay all in favor say aye. Opposed. I'm a rule ayes have it. It takes two hands for a roll call that correct. So okay with that too is for roll call if you don't mind just asking if you'll call the roll. All right actually takes three hands for a roll call do I have three teams I'll get to. Okay I we have three and four okay. Senator Mark Johnson. The what we're proving here is approving a thousand dollar award so that's reducing it from the from well as recommended by the claims commission two thousand dollars the. Senator Hester. Senator flowers. Senator flowers. First alternate senator garner. Senator Clark. Senator Stubblefield. Senator Stubblefield. First alternate senator garner. Senator Caldwell. Senator Caldwell. Senator this man. Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey. First alternate senator garner. Senator garner. Senator Ballinger. R. Representative Gazaway the. Representative Eubanks. Representative Eubanks. First alternate Representative Sonya Eubanks Barker. Second alternate Representative Carol Dalby. Represented Womack. Representative Womack. Representative Holcomb. Representative flowers. Representative flowers. Representative Eubanks Barker first alternate. First alternate Representative Eubanks Barker. Second alternate Representative Dalby. Represent of Coleman. Representa Coleman. First alternate Representative McCollum. Second alternate Representative cloud. Representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson. First Representative Eubanks Barker. Second alternate represented Dalby. Represented gene. Representa Shepherd. Representa Shepherd. First alternate Representative Eubanks Barker. Second alternate represented Dalby. The five yes isn't three knows the motion passes. The staff can we move on to the. This is claim number two zero one zero five five Leticia Sanders versus the Arkansas department of finance and administration. I'm AT Leticia Sanders sought twenty thousand dollars in damages from the Arkansas department of finance and administration for lost wages and inability to gain new cleaning contracts based upon her inability to drive to work claimants damages allegedly arose from an accident involving her another party for the state allegedly allowed fraudulent adjustment the Department moved to dismiss the claim arguing the Clement failed to set forth specific facts to establish a cause of action against it Clement responded arguing that she provided proof of complying with the department the commission enters an order granting the department's motion to dismiss noting that the allegation that claimant had been damage was not by itself sufficient to establish a claim claim an appeal. Mr really have anything to add to that no Sir but I'm happy to take any questions yes miss Sanders here. Yes centers if you don't mind having a seat and I know that you're introduce yourself you'll do it again for the record I appreciate it. Glamorizing my name is Li TCS Sanders. But thank you for being here miss Sanders you have an opportunity now to explain your appeal. The reason why I'll I'll file this claim is because I have done everything that the Department ax me as far as resolving this matter. The other party hasn't done anything I have all the information that may have the accident was sabotaged and the Department financed every piece of documents that I also have pizzerias including I subpoenaed Lee she got the other party had a jasmine I subpoena the P. agent showing that extra damages was done to the vehicle which was a violent of the day of the accident. The a. Supervisor list of listening. Miss centers it if you feel comfortable taking the mask off you can if I don't feel comfortable I do I didn't okay good and it'll make you leave easy to hear. On all the late where all the proof that I have showing the department had actually told me the last year in February to see in a start a fight letter to the other party and I've done that the certified letter return back to me so she wasn't informed of it they said if she didn't respond from my certified letter that my drive a license would be released well that didn't happen and she didn't respond back to me and they seem like the state is being kind of bodies because they're telling the other party was going on in not making hers of conjugate with me which was she's supposed to have done and it's just like one signed eight. Any questions from the Sanders from the Committee. I appreciate you coming and presenting your case miss Sanders and if questions come up we'll call you back down here are you are you finished with what she had. Actually I want to see if I can show the proof of the PGA. Probably not at this point if they are beyond that have a copy of them because they should have been filed with the original and the appeal to. Okay so we unit and the subpoena paperwork showing the damages done to the vehicle. From Steve landers okay so we do have those records you know usually the pages of the date of the accident you not showing me that you have proof of the documentation that I subpoenaed from stand Steve landers collision join the actual damages that she put on her vehicle and that this state is trying to force me to pay that have nothing to do with the accident yeah I think everything that you submitted to the claims commission we've been provided a copy of it. Thank you thank you. To have somebody from the former finance administration. Then about here from agency to. To explain the case. Okay well. Is there are there any questions from the committee. All right do. Do I have a motion from the Committee. It you know what let me let me just say that without having somebody from the agency here I don't necessarily feel comfortable taking this but what I don't want to do is after requirements standards to come back to deal with this so but I honestly I don't don't feel comfortable with just dismissing their appeal yes miss serving I would just say that this dismissal was without prejudice which means that miss Sanders while the commission found that she had not stated a claim against the FAA it does not prohibit her from filing another claim you it I I get that but I don't want to put her back to the the African filing the claim again it let me just say this the centers a lot of times it's really clear that a person has been done wrong the question is whether or not you've got the right person to to to take care of it so in this case I don't feel very confident that we're going to go to overturn the decision of the of the claims commission not because somebody hasn't done you wrong because I think that's probably the case but because the state is is probably not the one that that is the culpable party here however I'm not dismissing this claim with without them being here so from my standpoint we can hold this over but I don't want to have to make you come back the next claims meeting and I and I hate the fact that you're going to be lingering out of the Senate if you don't mind coming up on I'm going to I'm gonna give you the opportunity to decide what we do today. So this is from from my standpoint what. Yeah I don't think it was somebody here has a motion to completely overturn the decision of the of the claims commission an award you something I don't I don't I don't expect that to happen today but what I also don't want to do is is concurrent approve their dismissal of your claim when they're not here to give their side of the store not in that in show up. I'm I'm willing to move forward with that if we have a motion but we don't even have a motion for that so from my standpoint I think that it's probably better to carry this over to the next meeting which means you're not gonna get any fine ality until the next meeting you will be welcome to come back and present at the next meeting but we perjured testimony you don't feel like you have to do so I think I think my recommendation is to hold this over until the next meeting unless you want us to go forward approved the dismissal and what you filing a claim if you want to no I do not want you to approved the dismissal I will like you to further investigate because the state is liable department finances the ones that approved my driver's license being suspended not wavering need the opportunity to go to work and school because I'm currently in grad school and is a proven fact that you have actually let other US citizens that don't have a situation like this drive license if they work or go to school waiver them to have the capability to do what they need to do to obtain a livelihood and these have put a big dent in my livelihood and the state department is responsible because I've done all the proper procedures that was actually for them to release my driver license in the in the amount of time and that didn't happen and I have to start a fight letters still see you so it is biased and that this is the state's responsibility to to fix this act you have any questions from the Centers. Okay yes so. You're you're recognized Rep. Okay. I there interruptions Senate back you're recognized okay motion to amend. Warda centers five thousand dollars. Okay so I have a motion to amend in order five thousand dollars represent Gazaway needs to happen have. In the discussion. For me for with the. No let's all look let us consider the motion and then I'll reevaluate that do I have a second on the motion. Okay I have a motion the second any discussion on the motion. You are recognized in CS Mr I have not heard. The F. A. side agree will. May have sided with them but probably not have sided with them of. But the fact that an agency didn't show up of and the citizen we'll have to wait to that waited however long they'll have to come back. His most aggravating. And of that's the basis for my motion open okay you will. Okay any other discussion on the motion. All right the motion is to amend the decision and award five thousand dollars all in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Graduation this interview been awarded five thousand dollars thank you. I miss Desikan if you don't mind what's proceed to the next item. The next item is sixteen dash zero four nine six dash C. C. di ang ang as administrator of the state of Liang versus the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. Claiming Yang S. special ministry of the State of Liang filed an indemnification claim against the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section twenty one nine three oh for claiming alleged the juvenile Liang's injury and death or proximately caused by the negligence of the City of Little Rock and the Arkansas department of emergency management claiming alleged that a City of Little Rock dispatcher failed to send police and fire units to the scene of a one vehicle drowning accident in which generally he died as a result and in which five year old Liang suffered an anoxic brain injury Liang subsequently died two years later after extensive medical treatment and round the clock care we had a tracheostomy for breeding at two per feeding his behavior and communication skills or that of a child less than four months old despite his chronological age of five at the time of the accident respond in Arkansas Department of Emergency Management moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted responded stated that it could not be liable for the independent acts of officers or employees of the City of Little Rock amends in addition respondent also contended that the complaint failed to state the amount sought and also the claimant lacked standing to assert a claim under Arkansas code annotated section twenty one nine three oh for the claims commission then place the claim into a band status pending resolution of ongoing underlying litigation upon conclusion of the underlying litigation a hearing was held on this matter wherein parties presented their arguments and evidence to the commissioners after the hearing the claims commission enters an order dismissing the claim the commission found that no fax replied to support a claim that the dispatcher was being supervised by an employee of the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management without specific guidance from the General Assembly the commission was unwilling to find that the existence of a nine one one coordinator meant that the state was supervising every nine one one dispatcher the claims commission did not reach respondents collateral estoppel or constitutional arguments claiming appeals. Sir would you have anything to add to that Sir but I'm happy to take questions okay any question from serving. All right seeing none as someone here from on behalf of the innings. The service if you want to come up and present your bill. And I I I I see you presentation I'm just going to say that we are now fifteen minutes we sell other things go but fifteen minutes from from joint budget so if you don't mind giving us the abbreviated version of the wonderful. If you for some traditions of a record agree. Certainly certainly dishonest chair Carter Stein representing the estate of Liang I it is the summer indicated Liang was a five year old child and I'll get through just as quick as I can talk as loud as I can. Actually this mother and father. we suffered a drowning incident. There is an Arkansas children's hospital he spent the last two years of his life in our children's hospital we're in pediatric care. We filed this lawsuit in twenty thirteen circuit court. In twenty sixteen we filed a claim with the claims commission under this under under this indemnification statute so the idea that we weren't able to list the amount of the judgment we weren't able to do that twenty sixteen when we filed indemnification claim because we didn't have a judgment about that that time. we played as the statute so if you don't mind if you win if you have to stand up if you don't mind push that Mike internally talking to the reason is that we have at least one member who is who is online trying to pay attention and every time that she can hear you anymore we do that so you in we could have citizens are trying to watch so much you can speak into the Mike to be great my apologies of the note from so we alleged that under the statute the state of Arkansas was called upon to run a nine one one system and that all nine one one operators operate under the supervision of the state nine one one coordinator we know we have a state nine one one system miss you call nine one one it was answered by Pulaski County lastly county then transfers the call liberal it's clear to state what system. another reason it's a statewide system is this right here the state of Arkansas is asking for money from the federal government to run its nine one one system the state of Arkansas can't get the benefit of federal funding without also taken to the burden of that you can't say for purposes of getting federal grant money we have a statewide nine one one system and then when someone files a claim against that system saying no that's all local. Here's a grant award right here six hundred thousand dollars and it says this money will be used for the public welfare of the citizens of the State of Arkansas. again this claim was just dismissed right we have a judgment with the claims commission identification statute. The court was simply dismissed give Mr Yang. His day in court let him have a hearing before the claims commission don't just dismiss the claim outright saying Hey you know we've never had a claim like this before we've never had something to statute give this man his day in court he's waited more than eight years. Thank you thank you presented to have any any questions for this witness. All right thing that yeah we do have one question represent Gazaway. So procedurally this is already been heard by the claims commission is that correct that is correct indeed the claims commission make an award. Claims commission dismissed the claim. and again this is filed on a motion to dismiss and so the fact as pled in the complaint needed to be treated in the light most favorable to the claimant even the summary reference that there wasn't sufficient evidence we didn't have to present evidence at this stage of litigation so that's what we're asking for is to go back to the claims commission and have a school here I see okay and. I mean I know you've given some summary but you know as to simply and concisely as possible mend. What is the exact negligence that you are claiming against the state that occurred. Right so this claim to be clues indemnification client right what we're saying is that all of the negligent acts that occurred report were performed under the purview of the state of Arkansas Arkansas department of emergency management did did the state higher this individual call taker no. But did the state have control of this entire system yes. Right I understand that. I'm asking where the process to the negligence occur I mean what what is the crux of your claim that there was negligence I understand your claim the state's responsible over that under this overarching theory of basically supervision of the system I get all that what is the exact negligence that you claim happened in this case the injured or client okay you want to back up to beginning of of how the how the injury occurred and and let me say I understand we're not here to try the case today but if there's going to be a motion as in effect the claims commission I'd like to know you know what the grounds or that you have for your claim and and whether you know how just disability as an. you know what our interest is in doing that so again I don't think we need to. you know an hour long presentation on it but just as concisely as possible please sure I'd appreciate you clarifying that Mister chair so. The nine one one call taker who took the call for this to deliver up had previously been fired as a nine one one call taker by the city about and she should never been hired by the city over a she took the nine one one call from the mother and did not dispatch police or fire to the scene. And so this young boy and his mother stayed on the phone with the ambulance company for twenty minutes the call is recorded you can hear both of them drowning in the ambulance company got to the scene and there was no police or fire there both of them remain submerged for fifty minutes not an of it in a submerged vehicle there was a failure to respond to the scene I believe I mean obviously I'm. bias too but it's it's just it's a clear failure to respond to a nine one one emergency. Thank you. I have a question. Senator flowers is a question yes under fires you're recognized. Thank you so this question is to the Attorney there. You. Did you file a case. Right. Yes senator for our. Okay so. On this occasion we're where did you get from was a the other a quarter seating or is that just the damages the general engine. A good question Senator flowers so we filed this claim in the circuit court we brought in the State of Arkansas to that litigation under the statute said listen we want all of this case heard at this time the state of Arkansas claimed sovereign immunity and said listen this case does not belong in circuit court against the state it belongs in front of the claims commission. At that point the state of Arkansas was dismissed there were multiple appeals to the Arkansas Supreme Court eventually the City of Little Rock was dismissed as well for municipal immunity that left the call taker alone in the case against whom we got a judgment. We have that judgment now and are present in that for payment by the state of Arkansas. Again it didn't get to that and it didn't get to the judgment about before the claims commission because the case was summarily dismissed on them on the motion to dismiss the claim. The grounds for dismissal at. That we didn't state facts upon which relief could be granted. You did not have the judgment or the number to make a claim for indemnification at the time you filed the first complaint with the claims commission. I'm here in. I believe the reason the claim was dismissed or not I think. Miss RB may be able to clarify the commission's order I believe the claim was dismissed because we didn't plead facts or give enough evidence about the state supervision it wasn't so much about the judgment amount Senator flowers well and the motion to dismiss and did you have an opportunity to amend your complaint. well the motion to dismiss was filed back in twenty seventeen and then was renewed in twenty twenty A lot yes and yes ma'am we follow the response and we had a hearing on the motion to dismiss. It the accident you correct. Of the divisions that were laid by the state of Arkansas. I. I'll be clear well I don't believe any deficiency in the deficiencies were alleged by the state of Arkansas as far as the judge as far as the judgment amount. You said they were making the claim that the allegations were insufficient of full relief. That's correct that was the that was the claims this is seeing that they were alleging in the fax. They said the door insufficient facts of insufficient evidence that there was state supervision in this matter and essentially the order says we're not gonna make this determination we're going to give it to the General Assembly to make to make a call centre flowers I and I I hate hate to cut you off and I can put you back in the queue the way it works right. Make. Six. It seems to me like they had no place to go. The legislature and nobody wants to hear them yes people didn't that's my point. Why is that you want to be in the queue okay that sounds good Senator Clark you're recognized. Motion at the proper time. I have no other questions if there's any other questions from committee then I'll I'll hear that okay we have questions the lack like yourself up. Reprezent says we Shepherd you are you're recognized thank you so it sounds like to me that that the what this boils down to it's almost somewhat akin to a summary judgment motion that basically the claims commission found that the allegation that we should be responsible or the state is responsible for the negligence of an employee of the City of Little Rock well even the city itself was not responsible that that that's just not even even if negligence occurred that's just we're not responsible ultimately for that even taking the allegations that were made in the claim in my in my that my thinking of this correctly. You're just not to me miss Welsh speakers to the director and yes Sir I would point the as the Committee to paragraph thirteen of the commission's order and I won't read the entire thing it says but without specific guidance from the Arkansas General Assembly the claims commission is unwilling to find that the existence of a nine one one coordinator means that the status supervising every nine one one dispatcher an emergency responder. Okay and so and so essentially what it seems is it is. Whether whether this employee was negligent or not the commission is unwilling without without legislative action or without some statutory authority to draw a connection between an employee of the City of Little Rock in the state of Arkansas that is correct yes Sir and I believe that Mr Stein indicated that the City of Little Rock the actual employer was dismissed from the underlying lawsuit is that correct. That is correct under under twenty one nine three oh one which is the municipal immunity statute and again we played this indemnification under twenty one nine three oh four which says when the city is acting on behalf of the state. Thank you to someone else required by this this wasn't a motion for summary judgment this was just a motion to dismiss based on the based on the. Based on the initial pleadings filed so even lower well even even. Less burden I guess is what I'm trying to set our thank you. Your. You're recognized as Catholic. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're asking us for today that are are you saying that you didn't have an opportunity to really fully developed the record at the claims commission or you saying that because the claims commission denied basically saying that there's not a statute that gives the state of Arkansas the authority to indemnify. People in the situation that you're asking us to make that decision I guess I'm I'm just need some clarification on exactly what you're asking for today yes so so my position is that I have to appeal from the order that's been entered right and so the that. Order dismissed the claim and I'm saying look I want to get the claim back and I do think there is an indemnification statute that allows for an award be made now whether this body here. Determines that a ward or whether the claims commission has to determine that award amount first and then come back to this side subcommittee for approval of that amount that's I don't feel like that's for me to say I just want the case to I want the. Ordered to nine the claim to be reversed. Okay but one follow up yeah you're recognized it and do you think the appropriate place for that to happen is the claims commission or here. If we do it right here it'll save us a trip back to the claims commission. Okay thank. Things joint budget will start right now I'm not sure we're gonna be able to have that trial here today. Final question yes flyers you're recognized. So. So is it. This desk in do you have that. Yes ma'am I believe he's claiming seventeen million six hundred and twenty seven thousand six hundred thirty eight dollars and four cents. It. How's life in that little five year old I'm not discounting he's like that all of this case should be heard and bumped up to last year it now what we want to hear it that Eight all our Claims would be instruction that they hear it I think you should be heard claims it sounds like to me what they have done in this is it and the language they use in that order of dismissal is it what you like to see center fires let's hear from the the agency and then at that point if if if the will of the committee to continue this one over I would prefer to do that and try to hear it all out because the Joint Budget. Thank you can be heard just today right but he needs a hearing that means a hearing will well let's I mean it if the dismissal was based on the fact that there's that. The basically there isn't any liability from the state standpoint there is not well and I understand that and of course we're gonna do with the will of the committee is but if you don't mind that yeah I I assume you are Arkansas department emergency management if you would do introduce yourself for the record you are recognized yeah that's in France I'm assistant turned general here on behalf of department emergency management The commission got it right the identification section does not apply in this case they were effectively making a legal determination there was a hearing the commission heard arguments by both sides and determined that Based upon what was played in their complaint and the statute that the state is not liable they're asking for the state to be liable for city employees negligence now. Was it a tragic situation absolutely DO we hope it never happens again absolutely they get a judgment yes they got a judgment from the the person who is responsible it was negligent that being the nine one one operator the state of Arkansas did not hire could not fire did not train her had no direct oversight of this individual. The. If we work to and then five the state what it would be opened Pandora's box because then it would be subject to state to every excessive force claim from a police officer because of classed in this law enforcement certification any time the state with a. With a license some type of EMTs or firefighters. They're radically. That would fall under this the indemnification staging state would be responsible even though the state doesn't train on doesn't you know monitor their day to day actions So the claim doesn't need to be heard as a trial again it doesn't need to be go back to the claims commission the claims commission. Correctly ruled that from a legal basis the state of Arkansas could not be liable it is not liable. Any questions for the agency. Yes I have a question agency center five you don't mind just waiting one second we get represent Gazaway then we will recognize you all right. So the Mr Carter is here appropriately appealing the sensually the claims commission binding and that's what we're here for would be to consider. The finding of the claims commission is that correct. That is correct Sir and. Okay and I and I'm fine with that I don't know if somebody but may make a motion at some point but this is a serious issue to serious case and we're clearly run out of time today so I don't I don't I wouldn't want to just dismiss this today without having an appropriate time to consider. You know all of the law and all the facts here so. Thank you. Let me just say this that I I think it was overly ambitious for us to think that we could even even get this matter in that short amount of time that we had if it is the will of the committee let's hold this over to the next meeting I I I hate you know having them to have the tourney come back and then agency and everybody come back but to me that's easier to do than them the potential of the citizens who are here with the two other claims that we have today and probably have witnesses here so if if it's the will of the committee all right. Yes yes you're right. I appreciate that it seems to be the consensus is that it needs more consideration and for another time and also I think it would be appropriate to put this on a separate agenda just for this particular claim and asked the of counsel for the claimant's. and also the the claims commission or the state of Arkansas the law because I heard some things that seem to leave happy and to why the state should be liable with the federal funding that comes from. From the state and what the state in two nine one one system so To hear more on that so I do agree and will vote for a continuing okay and Senator Clark you're you're recognized and once again like we are now on on top of Joint Budget time which obviously we also have committees coming that are that people have to be at at nine thirty so we need to try to blow through this if we can't. Sir Clark you're recognized thank you Mister I don't know if there's a consensus or not because what we've heard is questions you know I didn't throw anything out there for discussion. I'm a former former quorum court member and I can tell you that the state in the department of emergency management does not till the county or any other entity who to hire how to harm except for as the former chair of city county local at a time when we studied all of this nine one one et cetera there's also no connection so as tragic as this is if we're going to overturn this we need to understand that we're also going to have to legislate that the department of emergency management is going to have to take over these local nine one one system center the response Senator Clark that reason I make a motion that we affirm the of. The ruling of the claims commission and get this done I I have a motion to affirm do I have a second on the motion. That I have a second down there. Okay so I have a motion and a second so the motion is affirmed the ruling of the claims commission any discussion on the motion yes centerfire you're recognized. He is so Now this is your Clark me key is a assessment of the law in the county and two in the responsibilities with federal regulations and federal dollars are probably eighty to a state and the state appropriate to local government there should be rules of engagement are and maybe provisions for training all right at least some proper protocol in place for the use both hands and all I'm asking is that we continue this so that we can know for certain at least the law applies. I appreciate that Senator flyers any other discussion on the motion. Represent get together when you're recognized. Thank you. I just wanna say this is a very serious case I think that does it sounds like Mr Stein and his clients have went through the claims commission process they're trying to follow the procedure the procedure is to come before us we're extremely rush their members coming in and out of this room trying to start another meeting we're talking about a claim or a five year old child tragically died and I'm not prepared and I don't think that we should be prepared as a body to just rush through this and summarily dismiss it when we're in such a rush on such a short meeting this is something that deserves our time and attention and it would be wrong of us to just summarily dissed dismissed at this quickly without giving them a full opportunity to be heard according to the procedure that set out and so for those reasons I would ask that you vote against this motion let's give them their day as they do is they well deserve thank you. Okay any other discussion on the motion. The the Speaker you're recognized. Mr chairman in not I tend to agree you for before voting right now I don't think there is I think that the dismissal was appropriate but for some of the same reasons represent Gazaway mention the fact that this is this is a a death case it's obviously a very significant matter and because of our time constraints I would offer a substitute motion that we come back in the at a time certain we that we still have certainly have the ability to affirm that the dismissal at that time but just in the interest of time and and out of respect for the series and seriousness of the matter I would offer a substitute motion to come back at a later point to take this up okay I have a set to motion of second. Thank you all right I have a motion and second any discussion on the motion. All right see another the motion on the table is to basically continue this deal to our next meeting we can set and dedicate sometime so to this this matter all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed. I'm a Senate motion is carried will obviously give you all plenty of notice and get you back and appreciate you being here today are there any other witnesses that came from outside the little rock area today to testify. Yes Sir what which matters are you on. Okay hold on one second. Let let's have you come down and give your your testimony as soon as we get the the table cleared and if you don't mind this desk and if you'll give us a summary of that case and then we'll move forward and and I I apologize to the the other witness what we'll wait and continue that to the next meeting and and also all of the department correction cases and so we'll probably have one I'll talk to staff will get it scheduled soon as possible. This is claim number two zero one zero seven six Caleb S. double plane versus university of Arkansas system claiming Caleb Delaplaine 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 claimant disclosed in his complaint the during the course of his employment he had raised several issues with the superiors including the behavior of various unnamed coworkers or supervisors as well as high temperatures humidity and the possibility of indoor heat stress claiming alleged that he was subsequently terminated unlawfully and without a reasonable cost on December tenth two thousand nineteen responded moved to dismiss the case noting the claim it was an at will employee such that responded could terminate him without reasonable costs in addition respondent also argue that the claims commission lacked jurisdiction over claims arising under the law of unemployment benefits Clement responded clarifying that his complaint contained claims for unlawful termination unlawful harassment in violation of this health and safety the claims commission entered 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 claimed it was an at will employee and had not stated 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 that responded violated federal regulations the claims commission found that those claims are outside its jurisdiction pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section nineteen ten two oh four claim an appeals. The server you have anything to add to that Mr but I'm happy to take any okay Mr deal playing if you don't mind coming down introducing yourself. Forty. You know I'm sorry if you come down incident from the might that be great. Okay. Mr defined your counsel. No Sir okay Council okay in so let me just say this was your plan if if just so you know you know we're we're short so if you can't give your presentation in five minutes I hate to say this but it's probably better for you to come back I agree so I'm I can be long winded at times okay that's what you want to do it now you want to come back I come back we'll come back okay I appreciate that very much thank you for your forbearance and so will we will pick up your matter at the next meeting as well that's okay let receiving notice about the next meeting or the yes I'm I'm sure I will make sure that you do get notice of the next meeting. I want to thank you all right so I'm going to go ahead if there is if there's nothing else from the Committee will go ahead and germs we get Joint Budget hi this meeting is adjourned. You have to. But.