Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212 (2026)

Compensatory damages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 16-55-201 et seq. and §§ 16-114-206(a), 16-114-208(a), 16-114-208(c)(1), 16-114-209, and 16-114-210 — 16-114-212 do not limit compensatory damages.
Any evidence of damages for the costs of any necessary medical care, treatment, or services received shall include only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or which remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party shall be legally responsible.

History. Acts 2003, No. 649, § 15.

Publisher's Notes. Subsection (b) of this section was held unconstitutional in Thomas v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241, 308 S.W.3d 135 (2009).

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 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.

Allegedly injured driver brought suit against another motorist, who then brought suit against a third party; the jury determined that the third party was 100 percent at fault. The allegedly injured driver attacked the constitutionality of § 16-55-201 and this section; however, the supreme court refused to consider the arguments because the supreme court considered the matter to be moot. Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262, 258 S.W.3d 744 (2007).

Court granted plaintiff's motion challenging the Arkansas Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003, subsection (b) of this section, and allowed plaintiff to introduce evidence of the amounts billed to her for medical services necessitated by the injuries that were the subject of her lawsuit, regardless of any discount that she had received on those amounts because (1) if the Arkansas Supreme Court were considering the constitutionality of subsection (b), it would hold that subsection (b) infringed on its constitutional prerogative to prescribe rules of evidence under Ark. Const., Amend. 80, § 3, and was, therefore, unconstitutional because subsection (b) would, if enforced, work a reversal of the collateral source rule that had been recognized and approved by the Arkansas Supreme Court, yet the Arkansas Supreme Court did not “prescribe” subsection (b), and (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court would, if presented with the instant motion, find that subsection (b) violated Ark. Const., Art. V, § 32 as the Arkansas Supreme Court had held that a personal injury plaintiff was entitled, assuming a successful showing of liability, to recover the payments made (or written off) on her behalf by a collateral source, but subsection (b) would prevent her from doing that. Burns v. Ford Motor Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (W.D. Ark. 2008).

Medical costs provision, subsection (b) of this section, violated separation of powers under Ark. Const., Art. 4, § 2 and Ark. Const., Amend. 80, § 3, because rules regarding the admissibility of evidence were within the province of the supreme court. Thomas v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241, 308 S.W.3d 135 (2009).

Plain Error Review.

In light of the Arkansas court's decision in Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241, 308 S.W.3d 135 (2009), a district court erred by limiting the presentation of evidence relating to damages based on subsection (b) of this section, and because a court had to consider the law at the time of appeal when reviewing for plain error, the error was clear. But the error did not affect plaintiff parents' substantial rights; the objectionable portions of the closing argument related to the failure of plaintiffs to support their claim for damages, as well as any evidence presented concerning the financial aspects of their daughter's care and treatment, were rendered irrelevant by the jury's verdict in favor of defendant hospital and obstetrician on liability. Csiszer v. Wren, 614 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2010).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case: Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. 2009). · cites it 11× “Under the facts of this case, whether the provisions of Act 649 of 2003, including, but not limited to those codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b), that addresses evidence of damages for the costs of necessary medical care, treatment, or services, violate the Arkansas…”

Shipp v. Franklin, 258 S.W.3d 744 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 8× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212 (b) (Repl. 2005).”

Mendoza v. WIS Int'l, Inc., 2016 Ark. 157 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 9× “I am likewise mindful that the Rockwell court also struck down the medical-costs provision of the Civil Justice Reform Act, which stated as follows: Any evidence of damages for the costs of any necessary medical care, treatment, or services received shall include only those…”

In re Special Task Force, 2014 Ark. 5 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 6× “Because this provision, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212 (b), purported to dictate what evidence was admissible at trial, it impinged upon this Court’s exclusive rulemaking power and ran afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.”

C.B. v. State, 406 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 2× “Section 16-55-212(b) limited the introduction of medical-costs evidence to the amount of medical expenses paid or the amount to be paid by a plaintiff or on a plaintiffs behalf.”

Samantha Edwards, Individually & as Special Adm'x of the Est. of William Bobby Wray Edwards, & Arleigh Grayce Edwards, Deceased; & as Parent & Next Friend for Peyton Hale, a Minor v. Eric James Cornell Thomas & McElroy Truck Lines, Inc., 2021 Ark. 140 (Ark. 2021). · cites it 2× “This flaw was evident when we invalidated the medical cost provision of the Civil Justice Reform Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212 (b), in Johnson as well as the same specialty requirement of Ark.”

Burns v. Ford Motor Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (W.D. Ark. 2008). · cites it 28× “Now on this 13th day of February, 2008, comes on for consideration Plaintiff, Holly Burns’, Motion Challenging The Constitutionality Of Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b) And, In The Alternative, The Applicability Of Ark.”

Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 286 S.W.3d 726 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 2× “Under the facts of this case, whether the provisions of Act 649 of 2003, including but not limited to those codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-55-212(b), that address evidence of damages for the costs of necessary medical care, treatment, or services, violate the…”

Saunders v. Wilder Bros. Sawmill, Inc., 269 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 4× “The law in question involves whether Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212 (b) (Repl. 2005) violates the Arkansas Constitution.”

Jones v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, 288 S.W.3d 241 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 4× “The law in question involves whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-55-212(b) (Repl. 2005) violates the Arkansas Constitution.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b) — 7 cases

Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. 2009). “Under the facts of this case, whether the provisions of Act 649 of 2003, including, but not limited to those codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b), that addresses evidence of damages for the costs of necessary medical care, treatment, or services, violate the Arkansas…”

Mendoza v. WIS Int'l, Inc., 2016 Ark. 157 (Ark. 2016). “I am likewise mindful that the Rockwell court also struck down the medical-costs provision of the Civil Justice Reform Act, which stated as follows: Any evidence of damages for the costs of any necessary medical care, treatment, or services received shall include only those…”

In re Special Task Force, 2014 Ark. 5 (Ark. 2014). “Because this provision, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212 (b), purported to dictate what evidence was admissible at trial, it impinged upon this Court’s exclusive rulemaking power and ran afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.”

C.B. v. State, 406 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2012). “Section 16-55-212(b) limited the introduction of medical-costs evidence to the amount of medical expenses paid or the amount to be paid by a plaintiff or on a plaintiffs behalf.”

Burns v. Ford Motor Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (W.D. Ark. 2008). “Now on this 13th day of February, 2008, comes on for consideration Plaintiff, Holly Burns’, Motion Challenging The Constitutionality Of Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b) And, In The Alternative, The Applicability Of Ark.”

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.