Ark. Code Ann. » Title 23 Chapter 99
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-99-207 (2026)

Civil penalties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

To the extent permitted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., any provider adversely affected by a violation of this subchapter may sue in circuit court only for injunctive relief against the healthcare insurer, but not for damages. The prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

History. Acts 1995, No. 505, § 6; 2005, No. 960, § 1.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Construction and Application of Relitigation Exception to Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 73 ALR Fed. 2d 405.

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2005 Arkansas General Assembly, Insurance Law, 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 393.

Case Notes

Suits for Damages.

Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2283, deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the suit filed by two health insurance companies under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651, which sought to enjoin several health care providers from prosecuting a state court suit against the companies. The relitigation exception to Anti-Injunction Act did not apply because the court had not previously entered a final judgment determining the providers' claims under the Arkansas Any Willing Provider statute or their claims for damages under the pre-2005 version of this section. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92101 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2007), aff'd, Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic, P.A., 551 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2009).

Neither the res judicata nor collateral estoppel doctrines applied to bar the claims asserted by several health providers against two health insurance companies under the Arkansas Any Willing Provider (AWP) statute or their claims for damages under the pre-2005 version of this section because: (1) although the providers had asserted their claims in a prior suit, the claims had been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c); and (2) the issues raised by the providers in their pending state court suit were different from the issues raised in prior suits that challenged the validity of the AWP statute. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92101 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 5, 2007), aff'd, Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic, P.A., 551 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic, P.A., 551 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic, P.A., 551 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2009). “The district court entered an amended order stating that “this court does hereby lift the injunction against the Arkansas Patient Protection Act of 1995, except with regard to (1) direct or indirect application to self-funded ERISA plans and (2) the civil penalties provisions in…”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l Park Med. Ctr., Inc., 964 F. Supp. 1285 (E.D. Ark. 1997). · cites it 4× “” Ark.Code Ann. § 23-99-207 (Michie Supp. 1995).”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l Park Med. Ctr., Inc., 413 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “Finally, our holding that the Arkansas PPA can be enforced against insured ERISA plans compels us to consider, as a matter of first impression, whether ERISA’s civil enforcement provision completely preempts the civil penalties provision of the Arkansas PPA, Ark.”
Quality Infusion Care Inc. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., 290 F. App'x 671 (5th Cir. 2008). “argument, the AWP provisions under which QIC is suing in Case # 1 and Case # 2 — at least as presented by QIC — do not present a civil penalty or other cause of action indepen-dendy available to a private third party.”
Usable Mut. Ins. Co. (d/B/A Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield), Usable Corp. (d/B/A True Blue Ppo, Arkansas Firstsource, & Preferred Provider Networks of Arkansas), & Hmo Partners, Inc. (d/B/A Health Advantage Hmo Arkansas) v. Adam Stibich, M.D., 2024 Ark. App. 510 (Ark. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Therefore, pursuant to Arkansas Code 2 Annotated section 23-99-207, Stibich sought injunctive relief against the Networks and asked the circuit court to direct the Networks to reinstate him to their in-network provider panels.”
AR Blue Cross Blue Shield v. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic (8th Cir. 2009). “The district court entered an amended order stating that “this court does hereby lift the injunction against the Arkansas Patient Protection Act of 1995, except with regard to (1) direct or indirect application to self-funded ERISA plans and (2) the civil penalties provisions in…”
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.