Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00918/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00918-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury-Product Liability

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

BRIAN SMITH AND ASHLEY SMITH, Individually

and as Parents of CLAYTON SMITH, a Minor PLAINTIFFS

VS. NO. 4:06CV00918

CARDINAL HEALTH 303, INC. 

(Formerly known as Alaris Medical Systems, Inc. ) DEFENDANT

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to allow the introduction of the value of medical

services provided to Minor Plaintiff, Clayton Smith. (Docket # 49). Defendant has responded. 

Plaintiff argues that the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003 is unconstitutional in that it

violates Article V, section 32 of the Arkansas Constitution and Amendment 80 to the Arkansas

Constitution because the statute infringes on the Plaintiff’s right to complete compensation for

personal injury and infringes on the powers of the Arkansas Supreme Court to set rules of civil

procedure. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Ark. Code Ann. §16-55-212 changed the collateralsource rule. 

The Court has located one case in which the Arkansas Supreme Court has been presented

with this argument, however, the Court found the issue moot and declined to issue an advisory

opinion. Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262, ____ S.W.3d _____ ( 2007). In Shipp, the Court set

forth the standard for reviewing the constitutionality of a statute: 

It is well-settled that there is a presumption of validity attending every

consideration of a statute's constitutionality; every act carries a strong presumption

of constitutionality, and before an act will be held unconstitutional, the

incompatibility between it and the constitution must be clear. Summerville v.

Thrower, --- Ark. ----, --- S.W.3d ---- (Mar. 15, 2007). Any doubt as to the

constitutionality of a statute must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. Id.

The heavy burden of demonstrating the unconstitutionality is upon the one attacking

Case 4:06-cv-00918-JMM Document 63 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2
it. Id. If possible, we will construe a statute so that it is constitutional. Summerville

v. Thrower, supra. 

Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262, ___ S.W.3d ____ (2007). 

In light of this heavy burden and the strong presumption of statute’s constitutionality the

Court declines to find the statute unconstitutional.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2007.

____________________________________

James M. Moody

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00918-JMM Document 63 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2