Arkansas State Claims Commission s4

MINUTES OF THE

ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION

August 11 & 12, 2016

On August 11th and 12th, 2016, 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. Jimmy Simpson, Co-Chair Mica Strother, Commissioner Henry Kinslow, Commissioner

August 11, 2016

(16-0750CC) Gabriel Marshall vs. AHTD. This claim was filed for property damage in the amount of $1,919.06. The Claims Commission unanimously denied and dismissed this claim for Claimant’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any liability on the part of the Respondent.

Attorney: Pro Se, for Claimant David Dawson, for Respondent

(16-0752-CC) Donald & Karen Oswald vs. AHTD. This claim was filed for property damage, personal and pain and suffering in the amount of $375,500.00. Following the presentation of a “Negotiated Settlement Agreement,” the Claims Commission unanimously allows this claim in the amount of $225,000.00.

Attorney: Noyl Houston, for Claimant Steven Abed, for Respondent

August 12, 2016

(16-0626-CC) Jordyn Plunkett vs. SOA. This claim was filed for scholarship benefit only. The Claims Commission hereby unanimously allowed Claimant state-provided higher education scholarship benefits as provided by Statute following the admission of liability and a recommendation of award by the Respondent.

Attorney: Pro Se, for Claimant KaTina Hodge, for Respondent

(16-0665-CC) Eddie Spears, Jr. vs. SOA. This claim was filed for disability benefit and scholarship benefit in the amount of $10,000.00. The Claims Commission hereby unanimously allowed this claim in the amount of $10,000.00 following an admission of liability and recommendation by the Respondent. Applicable state-provided higher education scholarship benefits have also been awarded to Claimant’s spouse and two (2) minor children.

Attorney: Pro Se, for Claimant KaTina Hodge, for Respondent

COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FILED SINCE PREVIOUS MEETING

(16-0803-CC) Kevin Linn 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 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0799-CC) Beverly A. Blair vs DHS. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure 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.

(16-0797-CC) Michael Harris vs DOC. In this claim filed for failure to follow procedure and property damage, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Dismiss” for reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-4 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0794-CC) Fredrick Hale vs. DOC. In the claims filed for refund of expenses, 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.

(16-0793-CC) Michael Hinkston 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.

(16-0791-CC) Alonzo 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 1-5 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0772-CC) Patrick Sherman 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 July 14, 2016, order remains in effect.

(16-0762-CC) Dexter Harmon vs. DOC. In the 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 1-5 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0718-CC) Rebecca Helms vs. UAMS. In the claim filed for failure to follow procedure and negligence, the Claims Commission hereby unanimously grants the Respondent’s “Motion to Hold in Abeyance” for reasons contained therein, and with the Claimant’s agreement. Therefore this claim will be held in abeyance pending the exhaustion of alternative remedies.

(16-0717-CC) Laveris Townsend 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 July 14, 2016, order remains in effect.

(16-0476-CC) Willie Davis, Jr. 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 1-8 contained in the motion. Therefore, this claim is hereby unanimously denied and dismissed.

(16-0225-CC) Wesley Jefferson vs. DOC. In the claims 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 June 16, 2016, order remains in effect.

(16-0704-CC) Robert Cooper vs. DOC. In the 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 would change the prior decision of the Claims Commission. Therefore, the Commission’s July 14, 2016, order remains in effect.

(16-0686-CC) vs. DOC. In the 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 would change the prior decision of the Claims Commission. Therefore, the Commission’s July 14, 2016, order remains in effect.

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 August 11th and 12th, 2016, State Claims Commission dockets.

______Jimmy Simpson, Co-Chair

______Mica Strother, Commissioner

______Henry Kinslow, Commissioner