Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ponder v. Cartmell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 26, 1990No. 89-170Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOtis H. Turner, Justice

I agree with the majority that it was error for the trial court to admit into evidence the report of Dr. Pike. For that reason this cause should be reversed and remanded. However, I disagree that the second point argued by the appellant, concerning the admissibility of the medical expenses, warrants reversal.

The majority opinion correctly acknowledges our longstanding rule that the medical expenses recoverable by the plaintiff must be found to be reasonable and necessary, but then ignores the “reasonable” requirement of the two-pronged test. Reasonable in relation to what? I perceive the test…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kay v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  2. E. L. Bruce Company v. CorbettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API