Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Plante v. Tyson Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2015The one-year limitations period begins to run from the last payment of compensation, which this court has held means from the date of the last furnishing of medical services. 319 Ark. at 129 , 890 S.W.2d at 255 (citations omitted). 2015The one-year limitations period begins to run from the last payment of compensation, which this court has held means from the date of the last furnishing of medical services. 319 Ark. at 129 , 890 S.W.2d at 255 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanderson & Porter v. Crow
neutral
2 sentences1956In Sanderson & Porter v. Crow, 214 Ark. 416 , 216 S. W. 2d 796 , this section, which then appeared as Sec. 18 (a), was held to impose an absolute limitation on the time for filing a claim for additional compensation under the Compensation Act. 1956In Sanderson & Porter v. Crow, 214 Ark. 416 , 216 S. W. 2d 796 , this section, which then appeared as Sec. 18 (a), was held to impose an absolute limitation on the time for filing a claim for additional compensation under the Compensation Act. | 3 | 1954–1982 |
Reynolds Metal Company v. Brumley
green
2 sentences1994There, the supreme court said: The appellant is correct in his statement that we are committed to the rule under Reynolds Metal Co. v. Brumley, 226 Ark. 388 , 290 S.W.2d 211 , “that where an employer furnishes an injured employee medical services, this constitutes a payment of compensation or a waiver which suspends the running of the time for filing a claim for compensation.” The keystone to this rule is the two words “employer furnishes.” We have never held that medical services furnished by anyone other than the employer or his compensation insurance carrier, constitute payment of compensat 1994There, the supreme court said: The appellant is correct in his statement that we are committed to the rule under Reynolds Metal Co. v. Brumley, 226 Ark. 388 , 290 S.W.2d 211 , “that where an employer furnishes an injured employee medical services, this constitutes a payment of compensation or a waiver which suspends the running of the time for filing a claim for compensation.” The keystone to this rule is the two words “employer furnishes.” We have never held that medical services furnished by anyone other than the employer or his compensation insurance carrier, constitute payment of compensat | 2 | 1969–1994 |
Heflin v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.
green
2 sentences1994Heflin v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 244 Ark. 195 , 424 S.W.2d 365 (1968). 1994Heflin v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 244 Ark. 195 , 424 S.W.2d 365 (1968). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1956In Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co., 224 Ark. 387 , 272 S. W. 2d 524 , we held that the cost of medicine and medical, surgical or hospital services was a part of “compensation” under Sections 2 (i) 1 and ll 2 .of the Compensation Act. 1956In Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co., 224 Ark. 387 , 272 S.W2d 524 , we held that the cost of medicine and medical, surgical or hospital services was a part of "compensation" under Sections 2(i) [1] and 11 [2] of the Compensation Act. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Gonzales v. State
green
2 sentences1956In Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co., 224 Ark. 387 , 272 S. W. 2d 524 , we held that the cost of medicine and medical, surgical or hospital services was a part of “compensation” under Sections 2 (i) 1 and ll 2 .of the Compensation Act. 1956In Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co., 224 Ark. 387 , 272 S.W2d 524 , we held that the cost of medicine and medical, surgical or hospital services was a part of "compensation" under Sections 2(i) [1] and 11 [2] of the Compensation Act. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.