Ark. Code Ann. § 18-46-104
Extent of lien
On compliance with the requirements of this chapter, a practitioner, a nurse, an orthotist, a prosthetist, a pedorthist, a hospital, and an ambulance service provider shall each have a lien:
- For the value of the service rendered and to be rendered by the practitioner, nurse, orthotist, prosthetist, pedorthist, hospital, or ambulance service provider to a patient, at the express or implied request of that patient or of someone acting on his or her behalf, for the relief and cure of an injury suffered through the fault or neglect of someone other than the patient himself or herself;
- On any claim, right of action, and money to which the patient is entitled because of that injury, and to costs and attorney's fees incurred in enforcing that lien; and
- For the cost of a prosthesis, orthotic, pedorthic device, or medical appliance provided to the patient.
History. Acts 1933, No. 130, § 2; Pope's Dig., §§ 7990, 10819; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-802; Acts 1993, No. 271, § 3; 2019, No. 890, § 1.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment inserted “an orthotist, a prosthetist, a pedorthist” in the first paragraph, and made a similar change in (1); and added (3).
Research References
Ark. L. Notes.
Brill, Equity and the Restitutionary Remedies: Constructive Trust, Equitable Lien, and Subrogation, 1992 Ark. L. Notes 1.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Where an injured motor vehicle passenger received insurance benefits from his father's automobile insurer, $25,000 for underinsured motorist-bodily injury coverage and $5,000 for medical benefits, such funds fell squarely within the language of this section and the hospital at which the passenger was treated was entitled to the funds. Stuttgart Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Cox, 343 Ark. 209, 33 S.W.3d 142 (2000).
District court erred in applying Arkansas law as a basis for dismissing plaintiff's suit seeking relief for the alleged impairment of its hospital lien by a decedent's estate that had settled a wrongful death claim without paying the decedent's medical bills, because Arkansas's interest did not outweigh concerns about forum shopping and maintenance of interstate order that favored the application of Tennessee law to plaintiff's lien impairment claim. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp. v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 855 F.3d 836 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 473, 199 L. Ed. 2d 358 (U.S. 2017).
Full Amount of Lien Not Discharged.
Where hospital's assignee established lien pursuant to § 18-46-108 and received a pro rata share of settlement proceeds pursuant to § 18-46-117, acceptance of amount less than full amount of the lien did not discharge the entire debt as court order apportioning settlement and extinguishing the lien did not raise or determine issue of debtor's liability on the entire debt, was not the equivalent of extinguishing the debt and did not bar assignee, under the doctrine of res judicata, from seeking payment of the greater amount, and there was no agreement between the parties that acceptance of a lesser amount would operate as an accord and satisfaction of the debt. Fort Smith Serv. Fin. Corp. v. Parrish, 302 Ark. 299, 789 S.W.2d 723 (1990).