Arkansas State Claims Commission s6

MINUTES OF THE

ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION

October 14 &15, 2015

On October 14th and 15th, 2015, the Claims Commission held hearings in the Commission’s Hearing Room in the Main Street Mall Building, 101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 410, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Richard Mays, Co-Chair

H.T. Moore, Commissioner

Mica Strother, Commissioner

Jimmy Simpson, Jr., Commissioner

On October 140000, 2015, the Claims Commission held hearings in the Commission’s Hearing Room in the Main Street Mall Building, 101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 410, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Richard Mays, Co-Chair

H.T. Moore, Commissioner

Jimmy Simpson, Jr., Commissioner

October 14, 2015

(14-0879-CC) Ronnie Smith vs. DOC. This claim was filed for personal injury, pain and suffering and negligence in the amount of $50,000.00. Following a hearing and after considering all of the information provided by both the Claimant and the Respondent, the Claims Commission unanimously awards Claimant the amount of $7,500.00.

Attorneys: Sheila Campbell, for Claimant

Lisa Wilkins, for Respondent

(12-0196-CC) Kenny & Pamela Metheny (Guardians of Cody Metheny) vs. UAMS. This claim was filed for negligence and personal injury in an unspecified amount. The Claims Commission will take this case under advisement pending the receipt of post-trial briefs from both parties.

Attorneys: Phillip Duncan, for Claimant

Sherri Robinson, for Respondent

On October 15, 2015, the Claims Commission held hearings in the Commission’s Hearing Room in the Main Street Mall Building, 101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 410, Little Rock, Arkansas.

H.T. Moore, Co-Chair

Jimmy Simpson, Commissioner

Mica Strother, Commissioner

October 15, 2015

(15-0906-CC) Owens Food Supply vs. UAPB. This claim was filed for an unpaid bill in the amount of $7,228.10. This claim was dismissed prior to hearing after the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss” which was granted by the Claims Commission.

Attorney: Pro Se, for Claimant

Sara L. James, for Respondent

(16-0132-CC) Jason Bowmaster vs. SOA. This claim was filed for disability and scholarship benefits in the amount of $10,000.00. The Claims Commission unanimously allowed this claim in the amount of $10,000.00 following an admission of liability and recommendation by the Respondent. Applicable state-provided educational scholarship benefits have also been awarded to Claimant’s spouse and Claimant’s one (1) minor child.

Attorney: Pro Se, for Claimant

Charles Lyford, for Respondent

COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FILED SINCE PREVIOUS MEETING

(15-0489-CC) Eric Murry vs. DOC. In this claim was filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-3 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0541-CC) Franklin Wright vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0561-CC) Andrew Walker vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, pain and suffering, personal injury and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(15-0575-CC) Cedric Austin vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Second Motion to Compel.” Therefore, Claimant’s “Second Motion to Compel” is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0592-CC) Keith Miller vs. DOC. In this claim filed for negligence, pain and suffering and personal injury, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Default Judgement.”

(15-0592-CC) Keith Miller vs. DOC. In this claim filed for negligence, pain and suffering and personal injury, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Contempt Order.”

(15-0592-CC) Keith Miller vs. DOC. In this claim filed for negligence, pain and suffering and personal injury, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies the Respondent’s “Motion to Strike.”

(15-0592-CC) Keith Miller vs. DOC. In this claim filed for negligence, pain and suffering and personal injury, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim will be set for hearing and all parties notified accordingly.

(15-0600-CC) Aheem Mumit vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, pain and suffering, personal injury and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Order” due to untimely filing.

(15-0602-CC) Edmond McClinton vs. DOC. In this claim filed for refund of monies and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0604-CC) Derrick Glass vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, failure to follow procedure, and negligence, the Claim Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(15-0610-CC) APAC-Tennessee vs. AHTD. In this claim filed for breach of contract and loss of profit, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion and Brief to Dismiss Claimant’s Request for Prejudgment Interest in its Amended Complaint” and orders this claim to proceed to hearing.

(15-0613-CC) James Stickley vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and refund of expenses, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-5 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0616-CC) Rick Logan vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and pain and suffering, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-3 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0619-CC) Anthony Church vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0648-CC) Pae Jarreau vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, negligence, and mental anguish, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(15-0658-CC) Roderick White vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and pain and suffering, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-3 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0684-CC) Omar Hill vs. DOC. In this claim filed for personal injury, negligence, and pain and suffering, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-5 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0718-CC) Morris Koontz vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property and refund of expenses, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(15-0726-CC) Edward Schuler vs. DOC. In this claim filed for breach of contract, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0734-CC) David Daniels vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0735-CC) Tyrone Hampton vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-5 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0752-CC) Aaron Rash vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0767-CC) Joseph Smith vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-5 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0773-CC) Brendon Barton vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0775-CC) Steven McArthur vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(15-0779-CC) Jeffery Pitts vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, pain and suffering and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies the Claimant’s “Motion to Compel.”

(15-0823-CC) Donald Hawley vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, pain and suffering and negligence, after reviewing the Claimant’s “Motion for Production of Documents” and the Respondent’s response to that motion, the Claims Commission finds that the Respondent did satisfactorily respond to said motion. Therefore, “Claimant’s Objections to Respondent’s Response to Motion for Production of Documents” is denied and dismissed.

(15-0838-CC) Joseph Smith vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that would change the prior decision of the Claims Commission. Therefore, the Commission’s September 10, 2015, order remains in effect.

(15-0853-CC) Kedrick Darrough vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0589-CC) Melissa Grant vs. DOC. In this claim filed for property damage, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that would change the prior decision of the Claims Commission. Therefore, the Commission’s September 11, 2015, order remains in effect.

(15-0881-CC) James Smith vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and loss of property, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0906-CC) Owens Food & Supplies, Inc. vs. DOC. In this claim filed for an unpaid bill, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the joint “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(15-0930-CC) Jerry Ellis vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, loss of property and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0022-CC) Michael Brown vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, personal injury, negligence, pain and suffering and mental anguish, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(16-0140-CC) Tracy Davis vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-7 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0161-CC) North Cypress Medical Center vs. DHS. In this claim filed for an unpaid bill, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0169-CC) Hakim Malik vs. APB. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” The Claims Commission does not have any jurisdiction over the Arkansas Parole Board.

(16-0189-CC) Charles Winston vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3-6 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0201-CC) Charles Winston vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denied and dismissed the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.”

(16-0161-CC) John R. Howell vs. AHTD. In this claim filed for property damage, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond to Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

On October 15, 2015, copies of the final audit performed by the Division of Legislative Audit were presented to the Commissioners for review.

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 October 14th and 15th, 2015, State Claims Commission dockets.

______

Richard Mays, Co-Chair

______

H.T. Moore, Co-Chair

______

Mica Strother, Commissioner

______

Jimmy Simpson, Jr., Commissioner