Arkansas Legislative Council: Claims Review – October 12, 2009
Posted on October 12th, 2009
Date & Time: Thursday, October 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Location: Room 171, State Capitol
Committee Information: Members on Committee
Agenda: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/Lists/Meetings/Attachments/12257/I7830.pdf
Attachments: none
This committee is assigned all matters pertaining to claims referred from the Arkansas State Claims Commission.
1:00 pm – After looking over the agenda, this may end up being one of those meeting where my readers will wish they had those moments of their life back that they spent reading today.
1:05 pm – The stack of materials provided for review today is about two inches thick.
1:07 pm – The chairman, Rep. Flowers called the meeting to order. She made no opening comments and when immediately to the first agenda item. The item (B) was reviewed without question or comment.
1:09 pm – A claim (Agenda item C1) was filed for an unspecified amount against the AR Highway and Transportation Dept. because there was no stop sign. $100,000 was awarded to the claimant by the claims commission. Rep. Tommy Lee Baker asked to have a representative from the AR Highway Dept. The explaination was that they did not know the stop sign was down. There was conflicting testimony, a witness said it was down three weeks prior to the accident but a AHTD employee said the area was patrolled the week before and it was not down.
1:13 pm – Another claim (B2) was awarded against the AHTD for a dept. vehicle improperly parked on the NLR Broadway access ramp. Partial liablity was found and the claimant was awarded $20,000.
1:15 pm – This was a claim (item C3) by a person who was pursued by a state trooper for expired tags. After the claimant stopped his vehicle, he ran into the woods, away from the officer, at which time the state trooper fired two shotgun blasts at him, one of which struck him in the back, leading to the claimants paralysis. The State Police denied liability and argued both that the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable and that the claimant was comparatively at fault. The Claims Commission found that the State Police was at fault and awarded $750,000. Rep. Gaskill is asking why the person ran from police. The answer was that he was being treated for severe depression. Apparently the state police was aware that he was mentally ill and feared the claimant was armed. The representative for the Claims Commission opined that the reason for the award was likely because the because the claimant was shot in the back. Coloniel Phillips testified that he disagreed with the Claims Commission. The representive for the Attorney General said that they respectfully disagree with the Commission’s decision because he felt like the Claims Commission only considered one side of story of the events that transpired. This committee may approve, disapprove, or send the decision back for further review. The claimant had been sitting on the side of the road when first observed by the state police. When the trooper finally returned to investigate the claimant then made dangerous manuevers to flee in his vehicle. The trooper recieved information that they had had a commitment order and had to call out the SWAT team for him in the past. Now testimony reveals that the was not shot in the back, but in his front right side of his stomach. The claimant was apparently carrying a guitar case that appeared like a weapon in the dusky conditions. Senator Laverty has asked several good questions to get the information this committee needs to be aware of. Senator Laverty has asked again, what was the deciding factor. Rep. Flowers is denying Senator Laverty’s question on the grounds that Mr. Hodge’s ability to speak for the commission. Senator Laverty again appealed for the ability to ask the question based upon precident that the committee has practiced in the past. Rep. Flowers relented. Apparently the first shot that was fired struck the claimant in the front and was not a serious injury. It was the second shot that was fired was the one that struck him in the back. I wish we had had some more discussion on this. A motion was made to approve which was passed.
1:48 pm – Item C4 was another down stop sign and decison against the AHTD for $30,000.
1:49 pm – The claims commission DENIED (Item D1) the widow of a Deputy Sheriff who died of heart attack in the line of duty who was seeking addtional death benefit. [I guess you have to run from police at high speed and have a record of violent mental illness for the Claims Commission to award you money.] They are claiming that the filing is untimely. The committee reviewed the commissions decision as presented.
1:57 pm – The claims commission denied a claim by a psychologist dismissed by the Dept. of Workforce Education. He was seeking 30 additional days of compensation after notice of termination. The claim was for $5,588.80. The commission believes that this is not a breech of contract because the Dept. had no obligation to use his services at all. This claimant is not a state employee, but rather a professional contractor. There are claims that the person is a whistle blower and there is a suit in federal court. This does not seem to be a breech of contract and there are alot of things going unsaid. Apparently this person was being terminated with cause but no one is saying so. The Department had previously changed the structure and had personnel in place “in house” to provide those services. The chair was unable to determine the vote on the motion. Upon beginning the role call, it was discovered that a quorum was not present. This terminates the meeting and all other items must be considered in the next meeting.
2:45 pm – Meeting adjourned.
Filed under Uncategorized |
Comments are closed.
