Court Opinion

ID: 9768519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:07:28.693283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:41.678286
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. The basis of our decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138, 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), was that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-204 (1987) conflicted with Ark. R. Civ. R 3 because it added a condition for commencing a civil action for medical injury. The condition added was the requirement that a plaintiff wait 60 days after notifying the defendant before commencing an action for medical injury. The question here is whether our invalidation of the 60-day requirement for commencement of an action for medical injury caused the entire statute, including the statute of limitations extension, to be invalid. The majority opinion, correctly I believe, notes that “where the purpose of a statute is to accomplish a single object, and some of its provisions are invalid, the entirety must fail unless sufficient language remains to effect the object without the aid of the invalid portion.” Subtracting the 60-day delay requirement leaves a law that provides a 90-day extension of the statute of limitations when notice of the alleged injuries and damages claimed has been provided to a potential medical injury defendant. May the object of the statute be effected absent the invalid portion? The object of the statute “is to encourage the resolution of claims without judicial proceedings, thereby reducing the cost of resolving claims and, consequently, the cost of malpractice insurance.” Cox v. Bard, 302 Ark. 1, 786 S.W.2d 570 (1990); Gay v. Rabon, 280 Ark. 5, 652 S.W.2d 836 (1983). While the statute may no longer require that the notice be given 60 days before suit is filed, if only that part of it is excised, the extension of the statute of limitations remains, and it gives an incentive to provide the notice. Providing the notice serves the object we have attributed to the statute, so the statute should not be held to have been altogether invalidated. I respectfully dissent. Dudley, J., joins in this dissent.