Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the locality in which he or she practices or in a similar locality; (2) By means of expert testimony provided only by a medical care provider of the same specialty as the defendant that the medical care provider failed to act in accordance with that standard; and (3) By means of expert testimony provided only by a qualified medical expert that as a proximate result thereof the injured person suffered injuries that would not otherwise have occurred. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206(a) (Supp. 2003) (emphasis added). Our case law has relied on § 16-114-206(a) and specifically on the need for expert testimony regarding specialty and similar locality in deciding whether summary judgment or a directed verdict should be awarded. See, e.g., Eady v. Lansford, 351 Ark. 249, 92 S.W.3d 57 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Reagan v. City of Piggott, 305 Ark. 77, 805 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where appellant failed to meet proof with proof in the form of expert testimony to demonstrate that appelleedoctor violated appropriate standard of care trial court did not err in granting appelleedoctors summaryjudgment motion (B) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment (C) holding that the bia did not err in putting the burden of proof to demonstrate grounds for granting a motion to reopen on the alien (D) holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof (E) holding that where appellant failed to present either expert or lay testimony as to the appropriate standard of care to be used appellant failed to present any evidence indicating the existence of an issue of fact thus summary judgment was proper
Output (English): holding that the bia did not err in putting the burden of proof to demonstrate grounds for granting a motion to reopen on the alien