JBC-Claims
Video
Transcript
5 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:10
Good morning members, uh, call this meeting to order and certainly appreciate everybody's early attendance here this morning. Hope you've looked over the documents and uh we'll get started and uh get our business handled as soon as we can here. Uh, we have a, a few things on the agenda, some reassurances of warrants and, uh, claim a settlement, uh, so we'll be starting with the warrants. I guess my co-chair has stepped out. We'll see if he has any comments when he comes back, is Miss Irby here? There you are. If you would come to the table and please
introduce yourself, and we'll begin. This will be Part B on your agenda, members. Catherine Ry, director of the Claims Commission. You're recognized if you would, we'll just
Speaker 16
3:02
jump into B1, SHI International Corp. Adam B1 is claim number 242046 SHI International Corp versus administrative Office of the
courts. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $18,672.56 payable from the administrative office of the courts. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Mr. Irving, can Can you
Senator John Payton
Unverified
3:28
elaborate at all on this? Uh, yes, sir. These are, um, These
Speaker 12
3:32
were several warrants we received notice from the agency from the administrative office of the courts that these needed
to be reissued. And so we started the process at that point and sent, checked with the auditor of state to make sure that the warrants were outdated and then sent a, uh, claim form to the claimant to have them review. They signed it, they had their signature notarized, had a signature notarized and sent it back to us and then at that point, I submitted to the commission for an order. So just to be clear, this is
Senator John Payton
Unverified
4:04
multiple. checks issued the one claim and we're totaling it all together. That is, I'm looking at it now. Yes, sir, it was.
Several checks. Thank you, members. Do you have any comments? Any questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve or, uh, motion? Do I see a 2nd, 2nd. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye? Any opposed? OK, that one passes. Let's see, we've upheld the decision of the Claims commission, I guess is the
way to phrase that. Go ahead if you would move on to B2.
Speaker 16
4:51
Adam B too is claim number 250071, Cox Portfolio Holdings Incorporated versus Department of Finance and Administration. Claimant requested reassurance of an outdated warrant in the amount of $19,917 payable from the Department of Finance and Administration, corporate income tax division. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Thank you. Do you have anything to add, Miss Herby? No, I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions, members?
Senator John Payton
Unverified
5:26
Saying none, we have a motion to affirm. Thank you. I see a motion at 2. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Thank you. Adam B2 is affirmed. If we
Speaker 16
5:44
could move on, Miss Johnson, to B3. Adam B3 is number 250553 Excel Fitness BEB IV versus Department of Finance and Administration. Claimant requested reissuance of an outdated warrant in the
amount of $19,000 payable from the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration sales and use tax section. The Claims Commission allowed the claim and referred it for
Speaker 18
6:04
review and placement on an appropriation bill. John, you have
Senator John Payton
Unverified
6:08
anything to add? Happy to take questions. Any questions, members? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee. Motion to reissue or affirm the ruling of the claims to be. Second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. And he opposed.
OK, so A B3 is affirmed. Now we'll move on to
see. I don't see Miss Johnson, if you
Speaker 16
6:42
would give us a briefing. Item C1 is claim number 240158, Sterling Dodson versus Arkansas Department of Transportation. Claimants sought damages related to a personal injury claim, claimant alleged that debris kicked up by an R dot mowing crew struck him in the face and knocked out his left eyeball,
leaving him with multiple fractures to his orbital socket and total permanent loss of vision in his left eye. Ardot did not dispute liability and requested a hearing to determine the amount of claimants damage. Before the hearing was held, the parties agreed to a full and complete settlement in the amount of $900,000. The Claims Commission entered an order approving the settlement agreement and referred the award for review and placement on an appropriation bill. Thank you, Ms. Johnson,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
7:26
and members before I, I have comments by the commission. I
want you to know that Mr. Dodson and his representation is here. So Miss Irby, if you would, do you have anything to add?
Speaker 12
7:39
Johnson, um, Correctly reiterated the procedural history of this one, but I'm happy to take any questions. Members, do we have any questions for Mr. Irby?
Senator John Payton
Unverified
7:46
Mr. Wootten, or Representative Wootten, sorry. It didn't
come on. Hold on just there it came. All right, go ahead.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
8:02
The research that I did. Classified the expenses for loss of an eye or an eye between 180 to 300,000. And I'm assuming that the other additional is for compensation. Um, regarding other parts of the injury, the medical cost and all that, and then I don't know whether there's a, a compensatory damages in there or
is it just 900,000 and everyone has agreed to
Speaker 12
8:38
it. It's, it, it's the latter there, um. The commission was not privy to the settlement discussions between the parties, how they came to the 900,000 is, is, is not in my, um, not in my file. My understanding is that
Speaker 35
8:50
900,000 is to represent all damages associated with this incident and to release our dot from any future claims for other damages, so if, if I'm understanding what you're saying, I want to be sure
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
9:06
I'm clear that or not and, uh, The claimant Agreed to the settlement and then they brought it to the commission, is that correct? Yes, sir. They submitted the
Speaker 35
9:16
settlement agreement for review and approval by the commission and the commission did approve it, but because of the amount, then it was referred here for an additional level of review, approval and placement on an appropriation bill. So it was an agreement reached
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
9:29
between the parties. Yes, sir. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Uh, Speaker Shepherd, you're
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
9:37
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, and just to follow up, I think for clarity Clarification. The climate here was not an RO employee. He was a motor. He was driving down the interstate. Is that correct? That's correct. But to your knowledge, as far as any kind of scheduled amount that an injury might be entitled to there, this is, this is a claim, uh, it's not related to any kind of workers' comp claim, uh, for example, in workers' comp, sometimes they're scheduled injuries. There's a certain amount that is
designated as to what could be recovered in this case, this was a this was a claim just the same as a, uh, as a, if somebody had run into the, to the claim in a car accident. It's, it's just so happened that the party that he was seeking damage from was ROT, a state entity. That's correct. OK, thank you. Thank you, Speaker Shepherd.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
10:31
And I have a question. So the
operator of the Bush hog, the
tractor, was that an RA employee or a subcontractor? That
Speaker 12
10:41
was an ArA employee, I believe, yes. Thank
Senator John Payton
Unverified
10:44
you. Anybody else have any questions? Does anybody, uh want to bring Mr. Dotson to the table for any questions? See none. Thank you. I, I'd entertained the motion. I have a motion to affirm the ruling of the Claims commission. Second, Any discussion on that motion?
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? It passes, so I don't see 3 is affirmed, and that concludes our meeting. Appreciate everybody being here.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Reissuance of Warrants
C. Negotiated Settlement Agreement 1. #240158 Sterling Dodson v. Arkansas Department of Transportation
D. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JBC-CLAIMS (8AM-9AM), Feb 25, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| B.1 SHI International Corp v. AOC | Exhibit | 24 | Official source ↗ |
| B.2 Cox Portfolio Holdings v. DFA | Exhibit | 17 | Official source ↗ |
| B.3 Excel Fitness v. DFA | Exhibit | 17 | Official source ↗ |
| C.1 Dodson v. ARDoT | Exhibit | 704 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 16
Speaker 12
Speaker 18
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 35
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified