Arkansas State Claims Commission s7

MINUTES OF THE

ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION

February 13, 2014

On February 13, 2014, 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.

Pat Moran, Chair

Bill Lancaster, Commissioner

Richard Mays, Commissioner

(13-0869-CC) Eddie Glover vs. AHTD. This claim was filed for loss of property, personal injury, pain and suffering, and refund of expenses in the amount of $15,000.00. Following the parties’ discussion and recommendations to the Claims Commission the Claims Commission unanimously awarded the Claimant the amount of $15,000.00 for his “pain and suffering.”

Attorneys: Matt Harness, for Claimant

David Dawson, for Respondent

COMMISSION’S DECISIONS MADE ON PREVIOUSLY HEARD CLAIMS

(13-0865-CC) Estate of Brenda Mize vs. DHS/Children and Family Services. In this claim filed for wrongful death, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “First Amended Motion to Compel Disclosure of Maltreatment Investigation” and adopts the Respondent’s “Response” to the Claimant’s motion. The release of such confidential information is specially covered by state statute. The Claims Commission is not included in the exceptions granted to courts and grand juries, as it is an arm of the Arkansas General Assembly. Therefore, the Claimant’s “First Amended Motion to Compel Disclosure of Maltreatment Investigation” is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0213-CC) Michael Snyder vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s December 12, 2013, order remains in effect.

(14-0223-CC) Rose Harshaw vs. PTC. In this claim filed for personal injury, pain and suffering and mental anguish, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,” solely for the Claimant’s failure to respond. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0299-CC) Partine Kiesling-Daugherty vs. SOA. In this claim filed for mental anguish, pain and suffering, refund of expenses and loss of wages, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s December 13, 2013, order remains in effect. At the request of the Claimant, this claim will be referred to the Arkansas General Assembly.

(14-0300-CC) John Daugherty vs. SOA. In this claim filed for mental anguish, pain and suffering, refund of expenses and loss of wages, The Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s December 13, 2013, order remains in effect. At the request of the Claimant, this claim will be referred to the Arkansas General Assembly.

(14-0301-CC) Stanton Daugherty vs. SOA. In this claim filed for mental anguish, pain and suffering, and other economic losses, the Claim Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s December 13, 2013, order remains in effect. At the request of the Claimant, this claim will be referred to the Arkansas General Assembly.

(14-0371-CC) James Miller 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. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0388-CC) Jerry Ellis 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.” Therefore, this claim will be set for hearing and all parties notified accordingly.

(14-0397-CC) Daniel Hurlbut vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure, personal injury and mental anguish, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” for the Claimant’s failure to offer evidence that was not previously available. Therefore, the Commission’s January 9, 2014, order remains in effect.

(14-0420-CC) Claude Wallace vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and personal injury, the Claim 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.

(14-0438-CC) Chris Everett vs. DOC. In this claim filed for pain and suffering, negligence and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3-8 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0449-CC) Deborah Morris vs. ADCC. In this claim files for personal injury, refund of expenses, pain and suffering, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration.” The Claimant is given until Wednesday, March 5, 2014, to respond to the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss”, which she did. Therefore, the Claimant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” is hereby unanimously granted.

(14-0455-CC) Jeremy Kennedy vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and personal injury, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously denies and dismisses the Claimant’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” Therefore, the Claimant’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” is hereby denied and dismissed. The Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” in the First Cause of Action for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-8, in the Second Cause of Actions for reasons set forth in paragraphs 9-11, and in the Third Cause of Actions for reasons set forth in paragraphs 14-21. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0460-CC) Daniel Hurlbut vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and personal injury, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1, 3-5 and 7-14 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0472-CC) Robert Heffernan vs. DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and loss of property, 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.

(14-0475-CC) Gary Crawford 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 and 4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0476-CC) Roger Bradford 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. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0487-CC) Tywan Winston 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 and 4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0492-CC) Odell Hampton vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property and mental anguish, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants 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.

(14-0502-CC) Marissa Hatcher vs. ATU. In this claim filed for personal injury and refund of expenses, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0512-CC) Billy Aaron vs. DOC. In this claim filed for loss of property, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-6 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0516-CC) Kevin Linn 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. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0518-CC) Wilbur Holliman vs. DOC. In this claim filed for negligence, pain and suffering and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for the Claimant’s failure to correctly follow the Department of Correction’s grievance policy. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0519-CC) Xavier Redus vs. DOC. In this claim for failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3-9 contained in the motion. Therefore, the claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0531-CC) Beverly Douglas vs. DFA/RD. In this claim filed for personal injury, pain and suffering, and refund of expenses, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss,” solely for Claimant’s failure to respond. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(14-0578-CC) Steven Cody vs. DOC. In this claim for personal injury and failure to follow procedure, the Claims Commission hereby grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 2-5 on Claim #1 and 6-8 on Claim #2 all contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

COMMISSION’S RULINGS ON OUT OF DATE/FORGED WARRANTS