MINUTES OF THE

ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION

July 11, 2013

On July 11, 2013, the Commission held hearings in the Commission’s Hearing Room in the Main Street Mall Building, 101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 410, Little Rock, Arkansas.

July 11th

Pat Moran, Chair

H. T. Moore, Commissioner

Jim Baker, Commissioner

(13-0907-CC) Randy Cox vs. State of Arkansas. In this claim filed for disability benefits in the amount of $10,000.00, the Claims Commission unanimously allowed the claim in the amount sought following the admission of liability and recommendation of payment by the Respondent.

Attorneys: Pro se, for Claimant

Jonathan Warren, for Respondent

(09-0701-CC) Ivonne Guerra vs. Pulaski Technical College. In this claim filed for personal injury in an unspecified amount, the Claims Commission unanimously allowed this claim in the amount of $60,000.00 following the presentation of a “Negotiated Settlement Agreement” and a recommendation of payment by the Respondent.

Attorneys: Morris Thompson, for Claimant

Mark Ohrenberger, for Respondent

COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FILED SINCE PREVIOUS MEETING

(13-0522-CC) Jerlene & Elijah Gilmore vs. ASU/Jonesboro. In this claim filed for wrongful death, the Claims Commission denied the Respondent’s “Objections to Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash.” Therefore, the Respondent’s “Objections to Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash” is hereby denied and dismissed. Also, in the claim for wrongful death, the Claims Commission denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery,” thereby denying and dismissing the Respondent’s “Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery.”

(13-0523-CC) Chris Johnston vs. DOC. In this claim filed for personal injury, the Claims Commission unanimously found that the Respondent had adequately responded to the Claimant’s “Request for Production of Document,” as well as Claimant’s “Motion to Compel.” Therefore, both motions were unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0532-CC) Micha Welsh vs. DOC. In this claim filed for pain & suffering, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond. Therefore, this claim is hereby denied and dismissed.

(13-0555-CC) Kenneth Waller vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously denied the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s May 16, 2013, order remains in effect.

(13-0567-CC) Bernard Bynum vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-8 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0589-CC) Howard Thompson vs. DOC. In this claim filed negligence, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss, Solely for Claimant’s failure to respond.” Therefore, this claim is hereby denied and dismissed.

(13-0651-CC) Sylvester Barbee vs. DOC. In this claim filed for pain & suffering, negligence and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-6 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0660-CC) Tyrone Collins vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission denied the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s May 17, 2013, order remains in effect.

(13-0682-CC) Clayton Vann vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, negligence and pain & suffering, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 & 3-13 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0721-CC) Malichi Muhammad vs. DOC. In this claim for loss of property & failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously found that the Respondent had adequately responded to the Claimant’s “Motion for Discovery/Motion to Produce Documents.” Therefore, the Claimant’s “Motion for Discovery/Motion to Produce Documents” is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed because it was directed to individuals and not the Respondent.

(13-0722-CC) Tracy Bryant vs. DOC. In this claim filed for refund of expenses, the Claims Commission unanimously found that the Respondent had adequately responded to the Claimant’s “Motion to Produce Documents.” Therefore, the Claimant’s “Motion to Produce Documents” is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0740-CC) Freeman’s Window Cleaning Service, Inc. vs. UAF. In this claim filed for loss of profits and failure to follow procedures, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for the reasons contained therein. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0742-CC) Bryant Shankle vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and mental anguish, the Claims Commission denied the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s June 17, 2013, order remains in effect.

(13-0743-CC) Donnie James vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, mental anguish & pain & suffering, the Claims Commission unanimously denied the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s June 17, 2013, order remains in effect.

(13-0753-CC) Billy Aaron vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-10 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0759-CC) Alonzo Gilliam vs. ASCC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for the reasons contained therein. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0759-CC) Steven Cody vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously denied the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s June 17, 2013, order remains in effect.

(13-0802-CC) Michael Orndorff vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously denied the Claimant’s “Motion to Compel.” Therefore, the Claimant’s “Motion to Compel” is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0804-CC) Hayward Patterson vs. DOC. In this claim filed for personal injury, pain & suffering & failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously denied the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s June 14, 2013, order remains in effect.

(13-0842-CC) Michael Brazell vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for the Claimant’s failure to respond. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-07855-CC) Earnest Brown vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1, 3 & 4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0873-CC) Otis Barnett vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-4 & 6 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0881-CC) Gary Crawford vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 & 3-8 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(13-0884-CC) Patrick Winters vs. DOC. In this claim filed for property damage, the Claims Commission unanimously granted the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

CLAIMS ALLOWED

(SEE ATTACHED IF APPLICABLE)

CLAIMS AGENCY ORDERED TO PAY

(SEE ATTACHED IF APPLICABLE)

CLAIMS DENIED &/OR DISMISSED

(SEE ATTACHED IF APPLICABLE)

This completed all the business on the July 11, 2013, State Claims Commission dockets.

______

Pat Moran, Co- Chair

______

H. T. Moore, Commissioner

______

Jim Baker, Commissioner