Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-107

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

J. Lyn Entrikin, The Right of Privacy in Arkansas: A Progressive State, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 439 (2013).

Case Notes

Claim Dismissed.

District court did not commit plain error or abuse its discretion in exercising its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismissing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff's pendent claim of this section with prejudice because that claim arose out of the same core of operative facts that gave rise to plaintiff's federal claims, which were dismissed, and plaintiff failed to defend the pendent state law claim and/or urge the district court to dismiss it without prejudice, which it had discretion to do. Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 554 U.S. 902, 128 S. Ct. 2932, 171 L. Ed. 2d 864 (2008).

Trial court properly dismissed a doctor's Civil Action by Crime Victims Act claim against a medical center operator because there was no factual support for the doctor's theory that public benefits were fraudulently received by the operator. Hamby v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 2015 Ark. App. 298, 462 S.W.3d 346 (2015) (decision in part under prior law).

Common-Law Remedies for Retaliation Under Workers' Compensation Law.

By enacting this section, the Arkansas General Assembly did not intend to revive the individual cause of action for common-law remedies for retaliation under Arkansas workers' compensation law which it expressly annulled at § 11-9-107. Lambert v. LQ Mgmt., L.L.C., 2013 Ark. 114, 426 S.W.3d 437 (2013) (answering certified question from federal district court).

Dismissal Denied.

Plaintiffs pleaded a facially plausible claim under this section where they alleged that the January patient notification letter defendants sent out could reasonably be construed as representing that plaintiffs were abandoning their patients or that defendants were terminating the physician-patient relationship between plaintiffs and the office's patients, the letter arguably constituted a written instrument that did or may have evidenced, created, transferred, terminated, or otherwise affected a legal right, interest, obligation, or status under § 5-37-201 (forgery). Murphy v. LCA-Vision, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 2d 886 (E.D. Ark. 2011).

Felony.

Conduct that constituted mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342 did not constitute a felony under Arkansas law as was required for a civil action under this section. Murphy v. LCA-Vision, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 2d 886 (E.D. Ark. 2011).

Judgment on Pleadings.

Judgment on the pleadings was entered against several Arkansas counties as to their claims under § 5-64-1102 and this section, because the counties' allegations did not show that companies that produced and marketed cold remedies containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which ingredients were used in manufacturing methamphetamine (meth), unlawfully sold, distributed, or dispensed the remedies with reckless disregard as to how they would be used: (1) the counties did not allege that the companies failed to comply with federal law or §§ 5-64-1101 or 5-64-1103, which regulated the possession and sale of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; (2) it appeared that § 5-64-1101, rather than § 5-64-1102, applied to the companies because there was nothing in the record showing that the companies distributed their remedies to unlicensed or unregistered entities or that their commercial buyers, which included retailers, intended to use the remedies to manufacture meth; and (3) even if § 5-64-1102 applied, the counties did not offer any example of the companies' alleged reckless behavior beyond their broad assertion that distributing the remedies in their current pharmaceutical formulation was reckless. Independence County v. Pfizer, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Ark. 2008), aff'd, Ashley County v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009).

Recovery Permitted.

Plaintiff may recover under this section where (1) defendants made misrepresentations to plaintiffs with the intent of collecting the commitment fees; and (2) accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, defendants received the commitment fees with the purpose of depriving plaintiff of its money. Terra Renewal, LLC v. McCarthy, No. 4:11CV00653-BRW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94935 (E.D. Ark. July 10, 2012).

Respondeat Superior.

Although an employer was not vicariously liable for the actions of his company's employee in killing the employer's neighbor, the verdict and damages award were upheld based on the employer's own conduct as an accomplice to manslaughter. Costner v. Adams, 82 Ark. App. 148, 121 S.W.3d 164 (2003).