DOR recommends denial of this claim. DOR states that the claimant’s 2002-2005 tax refunds were denied as untimely based on the statute of limitations set forth in §71.75(2), Stats. DOR states that it adjusted the claimant’s refund amounts for the years 2006-2010 based on disallowance of the working families credit, which does not apply to taxpayers whose filing status is single if their income exceeds $10,000. DOR states that the claimant received a reduced refund for 2009. DOR states that the claimant’s 2010 earned income credit was reduced based on the allowed amount for federal EIC. This resulted in a small tax balance due for 2010, which was deducted from the claimant’s 2011 tax refund. DOR states that the claimant appealed DOR’s determinations for 2002-2008 to the TAC but only paid the filing fee for 2002. In April 2012, the TAC appeals for 2003-2008 were dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. The TAC appeal for 2002 was dismissed by the TAC in November 2012 based on the statute of limitations and also on the grounds that the TAC had no jurisdiction to hear claims of racial discrimination. DOR states that the claimant’s allegation that his wages were garnished without notice is without merit. DOR records indicate no judicial garnishments against the claimant. DOR did initiate two administrative wage certification actions within the last five years pursuant to §71.91(7), Stats., however nothing in that section requires notice and a hearing. DOR notes that the claimant had notice to appeal his adjustments. DOR denies that it discriminated against the claimant. DOR notes that all taxpayers, regardless of race, who make untimely claims for refund are denied refunds for those periods for which the statute of limitations has expired. In addition, DOR does not reopen cases for which the TAC has made a final determination, regardless of the taxpayer’s race. DOR states that it provided all required notices and opportunities for hearing on the claimant’s tax assessments before proceeding through administrative action to collect on those assessments. Finally, DOR notes that the claimant’s allegations have been adjudicated before the TAC and in federal court and that his cases were dismissed in both instances. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
6. Charles Sheppard of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $110.00 for the cost of headphones allegedly broken by DOC staff (issue #1), and for reimbursement of $74.63 taken from the claimant’s inmate account for canteen items he states he did not order or receive (issue #2). Regarding issue #1, the claimant states that on 6/1/12, while he was housed at Columbia Correctional Institution, he was placed in segregation and his property was packed and stored by DOC staff. Upon his release from segregation, the claimant’s property was returned to him and his headphones were found to be broken. The claimant requests reimbursement of $29 for the cost of his headphones.
Regarding issue #2, the claimant alleges that his inmate account was charged $74.63 on 9/12/12 for canteen items he never ordered. The claimant states that he did not authorize this deduction from his account. In support of that assertion, he points to the fact that DOC is unable to produce either his signed trust account statement authorizing the charge, or a copy of the signed canteen order showing he received the items. The claimant states that both of these forms are required by DOC policies and procedures and he believes that DOC’s failure to produce them is proof that he never authorized this order or received the canteen items. The claimant notes that DOC does not respond to this lack of documentation in their reply to his claim. The claimant believes that the DOC’s sovereign immunity defense is absurd and notes that if the DOC is immune from any liability based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, why did they agree to reimburse him for his headphones? Finally, the claimant states that DOC issued a conduct report related to the canteen order issue solely in order to cover up their own failure to produce any evidence that the claimant actually ordered the items.
Regarding issue #1, DOC recommends the claimant be awarded $24, the depreciated amount of his headphones. DOC agrees that the headphones were under DOC staff control at the time they were broken. DOC notes that the claimant’s receipt indicates he paid $26.04 for the headphones, not $29 as stated in his original claim. The headphones were received in February 2012; therefore, based on DOC’s standard depreciation schedule, the claimant should be reimbursed in the amount of $24.
DOC recommends denial of the second part of this claim. DOC states that it is not legally liable for tort damages due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. DOC also believes that the facts do not support the claimant’s allegations. DOC notes that on 9/12/12, the claimant received a conduct report for engaging in enterprise and fraud by placing and receiving a canteen order and then stating he never received the canteen. The claimant was found guilty of this offense and received discipline as a result. DOC states there is no basis in law or equity for award of the amount claimed in item #2.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $24.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of § 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Corrections appropriation § 20.410(1)(a), Stats. 7. Hortense Lewallen of Nekoosa, Wisconsin claims $93.84 for cost of tire damaged by a road heave on Hwy.13 near Wisconsin Rapids in June 2014. The claimant states that she was south bound on Hwy. 13 and could not avoid driving over the heave due to oncoming traffic. The claimant’s rear driver’s side tire went over the heave, which slashed the tire. The impact with the heave also scratched and dented the vehicle; however, the claimant is not requesting reimbursement for that damage. She requests reimbursement for the cost of replacing her tire, which was only 11 days old at the time of this incident.
DOT recommends denial of this claim. DOT states that it has a maintenance and repair contract with Wood County, which covers the location where this incident occurred. DOT states that it has referred the claimant to Wood County for payment of her claim. DOT notes that incidents of pavement heaving are impossible to predict or prevent.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
8. Antonio Ferrer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $500.00 for reimbursement of insurance deductible related to an 8/24/2012 accident on North Mayfair Road in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. The claimant states that he and a passenger were on his motorcycle going northbound on North Mayfair road when he struck a large chunk of concrete in the roadway, damaging his motorcycle. The claimant states that there was only one lane of traffic open at the time due to road construction. The claimant believes that the road construction contractor had a duty to keep the traffic lane safe and free from construction debris and failed to do so. He requests reimbursement for his $500 insurance deductible.
DOT recommends denial of this claim. DOT states that Payne and Dolan was the primary contractor for this road construction project. DOT notes that all state construction contracts have a hold harmless agreement by which the contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the state from all claims for damages received by any person on account of any act, omission, neglect or misconduct of the contractor. DOT believes the claimant should pursue his claim for damages with Payne and Dolan and that his claim against the DOT should be denied.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
David Albino
Canadian Pacific Railway
Pastori M. Balele
Hortense Lewallen
Antonio Ferrer
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats: Szymanski
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 775.05, Stats: Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 29th day of December, 2014.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
BRIAN HAGEDORN
Representative of the Governor
ALBERTA DARLING
Senate Finance Committee
PATRICIA STRACHOTA
Assembly Finance Committee
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Government Accountability Board
January 6, 2015
The Honorable, the Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2015 Regular Session of the legislature, visit the Government Accountability Board’s website at: lobbying.wi.gov
Alig, Joanne Wisconsin Hospital Association
Alston, Garth Altria Client Services Inc
Altenburg, Rana Marquette University
Bare, Michael Community Advocates, Inc.
Bartlett, Robert Alliant Energy
Bauknecht, Jason Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Bauknecht, John United Migrant Opportunity Services/UMOS Inc
Beal, Christopher Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization
Benen, Sandie GlaxoSmithKline Inc
Bentley, Marc American Petroleum Institute
Berlinski, Heather American Council of Engineering Companies of Wisconsin
Berlinski, Heather Mayo Clinic Health System
Berlinski, Heather Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin
Berlinski, Heather Wisconsin Credit Union League
Berlinski, Heather Wisconsin Hospital Association
Berlinski, Heather Wisconsin Land Information Association
Bloom, Zachary Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin
Borgerding, Eric Wisconsin Hospital Association
Boycks, Katie Wisconsin Liquid Waste Carriers Association
Boycks, Katie Wisconsin Onsite Water Recycling Association
Boycks, Katie Wisconsin Precast Concrete Association
Boyer, Amy United HealthCare Services Inc.
Brandt, Sharon Cooperative Network Association
Bressner, Thomas Wisconsin Agri-Business Association
Brinkman, Buckley Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing and Productivity
Bromley, Matt Customers First! Coalition
Burhan, Charles Liberty Mutual Insurance
Callanan, Susan Northwestern Mutual
Carlson, Michael Gathering Waters: Wisconsin's Alliance for Land Trusts
Cherry, Robert Community Advocates, Inc.
Childress, Jason Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc.
Childress, Jason Johnson Controls Inc
Christianson, Peter Accenture LLP
Christianson, Peter American Family Life Assurance Company (Aflac)
Christianson, Peter BMO Harris Bank (formerly Marshall & Ilsley Corporation)
Christianson, Peter Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
Christianson, Peter Kraft Foods Group Inc.
Christianson, Peter Motion Picture Association of America Inc
Christianson, Peter Southeastern Wisconsin Schools Alliance
Christianson, Peter Wisconsin Land Title Association
Clay, Timothy Cooperative Network Association
CliffeKucharski, Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare
Elizabeth
Compas, Lori Wisconsin Business Alliance
Conway, Steven American Chemistry Council
