A civil action for medical injury brought under § 16-114-201 et seq. against a medical care provider, as defined in § 16-114-201, shall be filed in the county in which the alleged act or omission occurred.
History.
Acts 2015, No. 830, § 2.
Case Notes
Construction.
Statutory provision concerning venue in civil actions for medical injury was constitutional under Ark. Const. Art. 4, § 2 and did not conflict with the rules of civil procedure because venue is a matter within the province of the General Assembly.
Clark v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2010 Ark. 115, 362 S.W.3d 311 (2010) (decided under former §
16-55-213).
Improper Venue.
Dismissal of a medical malpractice claim against out-of-county service providers for lack of proper venue, under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), was proper where the patient received treatment from providers in two different counties and, under former similar provision, each provider had to be sued in the county where the services were provided.
Clark v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2010 Ark. 115, 362 S.W.3d 311 (2010) (decided under former §
16-55-213).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Ison Props., LLC v. Wood, 156 S.W.3d 742 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004).
Ison Props., LLC v. Wood, 156 S.W.3d 742 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2דThis statute has been held to supplement Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-104 , as has a similarly worded venue statute, Ark.”
Two Bros. Farm, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 940 S.W.2d 889 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10דTwo Brothers argues that venue is proper in Pulaski County because Riceland is a corporation or at least an association; therefore, the venue provision under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-105 (1987) applies; and that since this provision applies, venue is appropriate in any county in…”
McCutchen v. Arkansas State Police, 307 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. 2009). · cites it 8דFor his sole point on appeal, McCutchen asserts that the circuit court erroneously dismissed his cause of action because venue is proper in Sebastian County pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-60-105. Specifically, he contends that Sebastian County is the proper place…”
Brown v. Texarkana Nat'l Bank, 889 F. Supp. 351 (E.D. Ark. 1995). · cites it 2דSection 16-60-105 concerns actions against an entity “engaged in business in this state which has or maintains more than one (1)office or place of business in this state.”
Kimberly Ruloph v. Lammico, 2025 Ark. App. 350 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 19ד” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-105 . Ruloph argues that, because her claims against LAMMICO and Dr.”
Ruloph v. LAMMICO (W.D. Ark. 2020). · cites it 2דArk. Code Ann. § 16-60-105 . Defendants’ argument is that because the plaintiff could never try these claims together in state court, they cannot derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”
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.