Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant filed a pro se petition for judicial review pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 25-12-212 of the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting that the chairman of the Arkansas Parole Board had improperly denied him release on parole. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motions related to the appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition for judicial review where the petition was untimely filed, failed to state a valid claim of a due process violation, and was barred by sovereign immunity. View "Crossno v. Felts" on Justia Law

In 1993, Appellants developed Risperdal, a second-generation, or atypical, antipsychotic medication, which was considered highly beneficial in treating schizophrenia patients. In 2007, the State filed suit against Appellants, alleging that Appellants (1) knowingly made false statements or representations of material fact in their Risperdal label in violation of the Arkansas Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act (“MFFCA”); and (2) violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) by distributing a promotional letter to Arkansas healthcare providers that contained “false, deceptive, or unconscionable statements.” A jury found that Janssen violated the MFFCA and the DTPA by failing to comply with federal labeling requirements and imposed civil penalties totaling $11,422,500. The Supreme Court (1) reversed and dismissed the MFFCA claim, as Appellants were not healthcare facilities or applying for certification as described by the statute; and (2) reversed and remanded the DTPA claim, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting certain hearsay into evidence. View "Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

The Legislative Auditor subpoenaed Appellant to appear and testify during a meeting of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee’s Standing Committee on Counties and Municipalities, but Appellant failed to appear. The Auditor subsequently filed a petition for adjudication of contempt. The circuit court eventually entered an order finding Appellant guilty of criminal contempt and issued a $250 fine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of service pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 4; (2) in ruling that the subpoena was a valid subpoena; and (3) in finding Appellant in criminal contempt. View "Valley v. Pulaski County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellee pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse. In 2013, Appellee filed a motion asking the circuit court to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. The circuit court granted the motion and denied the State’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that Appellee was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others and therefore could be relieved of his obligation to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision terminating Appellee’s obligation to register as a sex offender, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that Appellee had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. View "State v. Khabeer" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working for Employer. Following the accident, a drug test on Appellant came back positive. Appellant sought workers’ compensation benefits. An administrative law judge found that Appellant was entitled to benefits, concluding that he met his burden of proving that his accidental work incident was not substantially occasioned by the use of drugs. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, determining that Appellant did not rebut the presumption that his accident was substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Commission for a determination of benefits, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured at work and taken to the hospital, where he tested positive for marijuana. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied Appellant’s claim for benefits based on its finding that, after the accident, Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs and thatAppellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by his drug use. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Commission’s decision, holding that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that his accident was not substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2010, Appellant was hired as a patient-care tech by Employer. On January 11, 2012, Employer terminated Appellant’s employment for Appellant's failure to become certified within eighteen months of being hired. The Department of Workforce Services denied Appellant’s subsequent application for unemployment benefits, finding that Appellant was discharged for failure to become certified. The Board of Review upheld the Department’s denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant’s actions were a willful disregard of her employer’s interests, and therefore, Appellant was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work. After noting that Appellant was on track to receive her testing date in advance of the eighteen-month deadline but for Employer’s failure properly to complete her application for testing, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board could not have reasonably reached its conclusion that Appellant’s actions were misconduct where the required element of intent was so lacking. Remanded. View "Garrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant served as constable for a township in Greene County from 2008 to 2012. In 2011, Greene County set constable salaries at $25 per month. Appellant later submitted claims for reimbursement of expenses incurred while working as constable to Greene County. The County denied the claims. Appellant appealed the order denying his claims for expenses and also filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to have the ordinance setting the salaries for constables declared arbitrary and capricious and therefore unconstitutional. The circuit court consolidated the actions, denied Appellant's claim for reimbursement of expenses, and found that the ordinance setting the salary for constables was constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's claim for expenses and that the Greene County ordinance setting constable salaries at $25 per month was not unconstitutional. View "Graves v. Greene County" on Justia Law

In 1991, the cities of Carlisle and Lonoke requested a writ of mandamus to require Lonoke County to pay one-half of the judicial and clerk salaries and a portion of the expenses of the municipal courts in those cities pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-17-115 ("the 1987 statute"). The circuit court granted the writ. In 2007, the 1987 statute was amended with an effective date of 2012. In 2012, the City of Lonoke and the Lonoke District Court ("the City") sought a writ directing the County to obey they 1991 order as it related to funding the Lonoke District Court, alleging that the 2012 statute allowed the County to ignore the 1991 order and reduce its obligation to pay its proportionate share of the expenses for the district court. The circuit court issued a writ of mandamus and awarded attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly issued a writ of mandamus ordering the County to abide by the 1991 order; and (2) the circuit court erred in awarding fees. View "Lonoke County v. City of Lonoke" on Justia Law

A circuit court affirmed an administrative decision from the Arkansas Department of Human Serices Office of Appeals and Hearings which placed Appellant Jose Marrufo on the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry. On appeal, Appellant raised two issues: (1) because the Department failed to timely conduct an administrative hearing within the statutory time frame (180 days), the proceedings against him should have been dismissed; and (2) the administrative law judge erred in failing to consider his affirmative defense to placement on the Registry. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Marrufo v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law