The Arkansas Supreme Court published a proposed new evidence rule Feb. 5 that would significantly restrict what medical costs can be presented to juries in personal injury cases, potentially excluding inflated or discounted medical bills from consideration.
The court issued its proposed Rule 412 for the Arkansas Rules of Evidence in response to the General Assembly's 2025 Acts of Arkansas No. 28, which amended Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-64-120(a). The Committee on Civil Practice considered how to address the legislative changes and recommended the new rule.
Rule 412 would establish strict limits on medical cost evidence in personal injury litigation. Under subsection (a), evidence of medical costs would be inadmissible unless the costs were "actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party is legally responsible." This language appears designed to exclude evidence of medical charges that healthcare providers have agreed to write off or reduce.
The proposed rule defines "plaintiff" broadly as "the person who received the past necessary medical care, treatment, or services for which damages are sought," ensuring the restriction applies regardless of who brings the lawsuit.
A reporter's note accompanying the proposed rule clarifies the court's intent: "Evidence of billed medical charges are inadmissible to the extent they represent an amount a medical provider has agreed to not accept and reduce further." The note explains that only "actual medical charges, those sums required to be collected, or which have been collected, are relevant evidence."
The rule addresses a common issue in personal injury litigation where plaintiffs seek to recover the full amount of medical bills even when insurance companies or other third parties negotiated significant discounts with healthcare providers. Under current practice, juries often see inflated medical bills that bear little relationship to what was actually paid for treatment.
This change could substantially impact how medical damages are calculated and presented in Arkansas courts. Personal injury attorneys have traditionally argued that the full amount of medical bills reflects the reasonable value of treatment, even when insurance companies paid substantially less due to contractual arrangements with providers.
Defense attorneys have long argued that allowing evidence of inflated medical bills creates an unfair windfall for plaintiffs and does not accurately reflect the true economic impact of injuries. The proposed rule appears to align with this position by limiting evidence to actual economic losses.
The rule could affect various types of cases involving medical treatment, including motor vehicle accidents, premises liability claims, medical malpractice suits, and workers' compensation cases where medical expenses form a significant component of damages.
Similar rules have been adopted or considered in other states as courts grapple with the disconnect between billed charges and actual payments in the modern healthcare system. Some jurisdictions have implemented comparable restrictions on medical bill evidence, while others continue to allow full billing amounts as evidence of reasonable value.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has opened a public comment period running until April 1, 2026, allowing interested parties to provide input on the proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in writing to Kyle E. Burton, Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court, at the Justice Building, 625 Marshall Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, or by email to rulescomments@arcourts.gov.
The comment period provides an opportunity for practicing attorneys, legal organizations, insurance companies, healthcare providers, and consumer advocates to weigh in on the proposed changes. The court will likely consider these comments before deciding whether to adopt the rule as written or with modifications.
If adopted, Rule 412 would represent a significant shift in Arkansas evidence law that could reduce the amount of medical damages recoverable in personal injury cases. The rule reflects broader trends in tort reform aimed at aligning damage awards with actual economic losses rather than inflated billing practices.
The proposed rule's implementation timeline remains unclear, as the court has not specified when it might issue a final decision following the comment period. Courts typically review public comments carefully before making final determinations on rule changes that could significantly impact litigation practice.
Legal practitioners handling personal injury cases in Arkansas should closely monitor the development of this rule and consider submitting comments if they have concerns about its potential impact on their practice or clients' rights.