Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 114
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (2026)

False and unreasonable pleadings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. If any action for medical injury is filed without reasonable cause, the party or attorney who signed the complaint shall thereafter, as determined by the court, be subject to:
    1. The payment of reasonable costs, including attorney's fees, incurred by the other party by reason of the pleading; and
    2. Appropriate sanctions.
    1. In all cases where expert testimony is required under § 16-114-206, reasonable cause for filing any action for medical injury due to negligence shall be established only by the filing of an affidavit that shall be signed by an expert engaged in the same type of medical care as is each medical care provider defendant.
    2. The affidavit shall be executed under oath and shall state with particularity:
      1. The expert's familiarity with the applicable standard of care in issue;
      2. The expert's qualifications;
      3. The expert's opinion as to how the applicable standard of care has been breached; and
      4. The expert's opinion as to how the breach of the applicable standard of care resulted in injury or death.
      1. The plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days after the complaint is filed with the clerk to file the affidavit before the provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply.
      2. If the affidavit is not filed within thirty (30) days after the complaint is filed with the clerk, the complaint shall be dismissed by the court.

History. Acts 1979, No. 709, § 8; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-2620; Acts 2003, No. 649, § 21.

Publisher's Notes. By per curiam order reported at 2015 Ark. 88, the Supreme Court adopted an amendment to Ark. R. Civ. P. 11, effective April 1, 2015. The order states in part: “With the adoption of the revisions to Rule 11, section 21 of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209, is superseded pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-11-301”.

Subdivision (b)(3)(B) of this section previously had been held unconstitutional in Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231, 253 S.W.3d 415 (2007).

Amendments. The 2003 amendment rewrote this section.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Mark James Chaney, Recent Developments: Arkansas Supreme Court Issued Interim Report of Special Task Force on Practice and Procedure in Civil Cases Regarding Possible Changes to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure Because of the Invalidation of the Civil Justice Reform Act, 67 Ark. L. Rev. 193 (2014).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Sevawn Foster, Note: Constitutional Law — Arkansas’s Current Procedural Rulemaking Conundrum: Attempting to Quell the Political Discord, 37 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 105 (2014).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Patient lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 16-114-209(b)(3) because the circuit court did not apply the 30-day time limitation to him; moreover, the patient did not present a convincing argument to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality applied to the rest of § 16-114-209. A trial court's finding that part of the statute was unconstitutional was moot on appeal due to a finding that a dismissal was appropriate. Childers v. Payne, 369 Ark. 201, 252 S.W.3d 129 (2007).

The constitutional infirmity in § 16-114-209(b) is the provision for dismissal if an affidavit does not accompany a complaint within 30 days; therefore, a decision to dismiss a medical malpractice action for failing to file such an affidavit was reversed on appeal since this conflicted with Ark. R. Civ. P. 3 and Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 3. Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231, 253 S.W.3d 415 (2007).

District court's order dismissing a fired worker's medical negligence suit had to be reversed: (1) the district court held that Arkansas law pertaining to medical malpractice suits applied to the worker's negligence suit against a clinical laboratory, a medical review officer, and the officer's employer, who had examined her drug test and had concluded that she had tested positive for drug use; (2) the district court concluded that it was compelled by subdivision (b)(3)(B) of this section, invalidated by Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231 (2007), to dismiss the suit with prejudice after the worker failed to timely present an expert affidavit that established reasonable cause for filing an action for medical injury due to negligence; (3) after the district court dismissed the suit, and while the worker's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of Arkansas, in Summerville, ruled that subdivision (b)(3)(B) of this section was invalid and struck it from the Arkansas Code, thereby rendering the statute a legal nullity; and (4) the Eighth Circuit appeals found it appropriate to exercise its discretion to address the Summerville decision, even though the worker waited until her reply brief to challenge the statute's validity, because the state supreme court's ruling was determinative of the appeal. Newton v. Clinical Reference Lab., 517 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2008).

In General.

Medical malpractice complaint that was not accompanied by an expert's affidavit was properly dismissed; although plaintiffs alleged that the negligence of the doctor in allowing a sharp instrument to fall into patient's spinal cord was within a jury's comprehension as a matter of general knowledge, the court found that an expert was required for the jury to understand what a cervical diskectomy and fusion was, what instruments were used to perform the procedures, what procedures and risks were involved, and whether the doctor's actions proximately caused the injury alleged by appellants. Robbins v. Johnson, 367 Ark. 506, 241 S.W.3d 747 (2006).

Cited: Haney v. DeSandre, 286 Ark. 258, 692 S.W.2d 214 (1985); HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc. v. National Bank, 294 Ark. 525, 745 S.W.2d 120 (1988).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 58× “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl.2006). This court has often stated our standard for reviewing the constitutionality of a statute: It is well settled that there is a presumption of validity attending every consideration of a statute's constitutionality; every act carries a…”
Childers v. H. Louis Payne, Dc, 252 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 34× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl. 2006).”
In re Special Task Force, 2014 Ark. 5 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 10× “1 Section 21 of Act 649, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 , provides that a party who files an action for medical injury “without reasonable cause,” or the attorney who signed the complaint, “shall thereafter, as determined by the court, be subject to .”
Clark v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 362 S.W.3d 311 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 6× “After we concluded that section 16-114-209(b) was procedural, we examined its asserted conflict with Rule 3.”
Hamilton v. Allen, 267 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “One example of such a rejection is our supreme court’s finding as unconstitutional Act 649’s requirement that a trial court dismiss a plaintiff s malpractice case if a plaintiff fails to file an affidavit of reasonable cause within thirty days of filing her complaint, now…”
Robbins v. Johnson, 241 S.W.3d 747 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 5× “The complaint stated that an affidavit from an expert in the same or related field, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (b) (Repl. 2006), was not necessary in this case, because Mrs.”
McKinney v. Bishop, 252 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 4× “Bishop and Crawford Memorial Hospital each filed a separate motion to dismiss McKinney’s complaint, alleging that he failed to meet the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl. 2006).”
McAdams v. Curnayn, 239 S.W.3d 17 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “2003), a plaintiff must provide, within thirty days of the filing of the complaint, an affidavit containing an expert opinion as to the standard of care in the particular specialty, the breach of that standard, and resulting injury. Failure to do so subjects the plaintiff to…”
Ramsey v. Dodd, 2015 Ark. App. 122 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (b) (Repl. 2006).”
Shields v. QHG of Springdale, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 598 (Ark. 2009). · cites it 2× “On January 29, 2008, Kendrick filed a motion for summary judgment based on Shields’s failure to file an affidavit of a general surgeon, as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-114-209; the findings in Hansel’s report; and Malm’s admission that he could find no expert…”
James Andrew Williams v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr.; Catholic Health Initiatives; First Initiatives Ins. Co., Ltd.; & Dr. Jay D. Holland, M.D., 2021 Ark. 14 (Ark. 2021). · cites it 2× “(c)(1) If the plaintiff files an action for medical injury during this tolling period without the requisite affidavit required by § 16-114-209(b)(1) and (2), the complaint shall be dismissed and costs, attorney’s fees, and appropriate sanctions as determined by the court shall…”
Duncan v. Olive, 2014 Ark. App. 152 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “1: Please admit that you have not obtained an affidavit that has been signed and executed by an expert engaged in the same type of medical practice or specialty as the Defendants, which demonstrates reasonable cause for filing your Complaint for medical injury against the…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(a) — 1 case
Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2007). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl.2006). This court has often stated our standard for reviewing the constitutionality of a statute: It is well settled that there is a presumption of validity attending every consideration of a statute's constitutionality; every act carries a…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b) — 4 cases
Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2007). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl.2006). This court has often stated our standard for reviewing the constitutionality of a statute: It is well settled that there is a presumption of validity attending every consideration of a statute's constitutionality; every act carries a…”
Clark v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 362 S.W.3d 311 (Ark. 2010). “After we concluded that section 16-114-209(b) was procedural, we examined its asserted conflict with Rule 3.”
Hamilton v. Allen, 267 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). “One example of such a rejection is our supreme court’s finding as unconstitutional Act 649’s requirement that a trial court dismiss a plaintiff s malpractice case if a plaintiff fails to file an affidavit of reasonable cause within thirty days of filing her complaint, now…”
Childers v. H. Louis Payne, Dc, 252 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2007). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl. 2006).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(1) — 2 cases
Robbins v. Johnson, 241 S.W.3d 747 (Ark. 2006). “The complaint stated that an affidavit from an expert in the same or related field, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (b) (Repl. 2006), was not necessary in this case, because Mrs.”
James Andrew Williams v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr.; Catholic Health Initiatives; First Initiatives Ins. Co., Ltd.; & Dr. Jay D. Holland, M.D., 2021 Ark. 14 (Ark. 2021). “(c)(1) If the plaintiff files an action for medical injury during this tolling period without the requisite affidavit required by § 16-114-209(b)(1) and (2), the complaint shall be dismissed and costs, attorney’s fees, and appropriate sanctions as determined by the court shall…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(2) — 1 case
Childers v. H. Louis Payne, Dc, 252 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2007). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl. 2006).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(3) — 2 cases
Childers v. H. Louis Payne, Dc, 252 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2007). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl. 2006).”
James Andrew Williams v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr.; Catholic Health Initiatives; First Initiatives Ins. Co., Ltd.; & Dr. Jay D. Holland, M.D., 2021 Ark. 14 (Ark. 2021). “(c)(1) If the plaintiff files an action for medical injury during this tolling period without the requisite affidavit required by § 16-114-209(b)(1) and (2), the complaint shall be dismissed and costs, attorney’s fees, and appropriate sanctions as determined by the court shall…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(3)(A) — 1 case
Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2007). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl.2006). This court has often stated our standard for reviewing the constitutionality of a statute: It is well settled that there is a presumption of validity attending every consideration of a statute's constitutionality; every act carries a…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(3)(B) — 2 cases
Summerville v. Thrower, 253 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2007). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl.2006). This court has often stated our standard for reviewing the constitutionality of a statute: It is well settled that there is a presumption of validity attending every consideration of a statute's constitutionality; every act carries a…”
Childers v. H. Louis Payne, Dc, 252 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2007). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 (Repl. 2006).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.