Dale v. White
| Decision Date | 07 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CV–17–716,CV–17–716 |
| Citation | 545 S.W.3d 812 |
| Parties | Blake DALE, Appellant v. Jeremy WHITE, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Kezhaya Law, Bentonville, by: Metthew A. Kezhaya, for appellant.
One brief only.
Blake Dale appeals following a bench trial in the Benton County Circuit Court. On appeal, Dale argues that the circuit court erred by (1) failing to award him prejudgment interest and limiting his postjudgment interest to four percent; (2) excluding estimates for future dental and orthodontic expenses; (3) refusing to award him damages for his emergency-room bill and awarding those damages to the hospital; and (4) not awarding him punitive damages. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
On February 8, 2016, Dale filed suit against Jeremy White alleging claims for assault, battery, and breach of contract. The complaint alleged that White kicked Dale in the face multiple times which resulted in damage to Dale's "bite structure." Dale attached a written contract to the complaint in which White assumed financial responsibility for Dale's dental expenses if Dale agreed to forgo criminal charges and any further legal action.
The court held a bench trial on March 1, 2017. The testimony at trial showed that during a social gathering at White's home, White and Dale got into a physical altercation, resulting in injury to Dale's mouth and teeth. The incident occurred around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. Both White and Dale testified that they had been drinking alcohol throughout the evening. Dale admitted that he had used rude language toward White, and White admitted that he "threw the first punch."
Dale testified that immediately after the incident, he filed a police report and went to the emergency room at Northwest Arkansas Hospital. He later went to an orthodontist and a dentist. At the dentist, Dale received a cleaning and an estimate for reconstruction of his teeth. At the orthodontist, he received an estimate for braces. Dale testified that he and White eventually agreed that he would drop the criminal charges against White in exchange for White's paying his dental expenses, as evidenced by the written contract. White paid for the dental cleaning but refused to pay the emergency-room bill, the orthodontic estimate, or the dental estimate.
During trial, Dale introduced into evidence a statement from Northwest Arkansas Hospital, showing a summary of charges for $8937.95 for an emergency room visit. The statement shows the total amount due as zero dollars. Dale testified that he did not make any payments toward the $8937.95 and had no intention of paying it, but he argued the collateral-source rule allowed him to recover the sum.
Dale attempted to introduce into evidence the estimates from the orthodontist and dentist. Specifically, the document from the dentist is labeled "TREATMENT PLAN" and totals $1545. The document from the orthodontist is labeled "Payment Options" and shows an estimated balance of $6125. The court excluded the evidence as hearsay because the estimates were for future medical expenses, not medical expenses incurred, and Dale failed to offer a witness to authenticate the documents.
At the conclusion of trial, the court found in favor of Dale. However, the court found that the only evidence of damages was the dental bill for the cleaning and the Northwest Arkansas Hospital statement. As to the dental bill, the court found that the evidence showed that White had already paid the bill. As to the hospital statement, the court found that Dale had not paid the hospital and had no intention of paying the hospital. Accordingly, the court ordered White to pay $8937.95 directly to Northwest Arkansas Hospital, and if the hospital declined the payment, the court ordered the funds to be returned to White. The court awarded Dale $700 for pain and suffering but denied him any punitive damages.
Prior to the entry of the written judgment, on March 10, 2017, Dale filed a motion for a new trial. He argued that the court erred by excluding the orthodontic and dental estimates, by directing the judgment to Northwest Arkansas Hospital, and by denying him punitive damages.
The court awarded Dale postjudgment interest at the rate of four percent per annum.
Following the entry of the judgment, the court did not enter an order on Dale's motion for a new trial, and pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b),1 the motion was deemed denied on May 28, 2017. Dale filed a notice of appeal on June 1, 2017.
On June 16, 2017, Dale filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60. In the motion, he argued that the court failed to award him prejudgment interest and failed to award him postjudgment interest at ten percent per annum pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16–65–114. The court did not rule on the motion, and Dale filed an amended notice of appeal on August 9, 2017, to include the denial of his Rule 60 motion.
We now turn to the issues on appeal. Dale argues that the circuit court erred by (1) failing to award him prejudgment interest and limiting his postjudgment interest to four percent; (2) excluding estimates for future dental and orthodontic work; (3) refusing to award him damages for his emergency room bill and awarding those damages to the hospital; and (4) not awarding him punitive damages.
As to Dale's first issue on appeal concerning prejudgment and postjudgment interest, we hold that Dale failed to obtain a ruling; thus, the issue is not preserved for our review. Dale raised the argument in his Rule 60 motion filed on June 16, 2017, but the circuit court never issued a ruling on the motion. The motion was not deemed denied by operation of law as it was filed more than ten days after entry of the April 27, 2017 judgment, and Rule 60 contains no deemed-denied provision. See Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(b)(1) ; Miller v. Moore , 2017 Ark. App. 619, 535 S.W.3d 651. Accordingly, there is no ruling by the circuit court from which to appeal. See Hurst v. Dixon , 357 Ark. 439, 182 S.W.3d 102 (2004). It is well settled that a party's failure to obtain a ruling is a procedural bar to this court's consideration of the issue on appeal. Id. Accordingly, we must affirm on this point.
Dale next argues that the circuit court erred by excluding the orthodontic and dental estimates. He argues that the estimates are evidence of future medical treatments and that they are admissible under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16–46–107 and Arkansas Rule of Evidence 803(6).
We first address Dale's argument concerning Arkansas Code Annotated section 16–46–107. He specifically argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the estimates were inadmissible pursuant to section 16–46–107 because he had not incurred the expenses. He claims that "the statute does not draw that distinction."
We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, as it is for this court to decide what a statute means. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Henderson , 356 Ark. 335, 150 S.W.3d 276 (2004). In this respect, we are not bound by the circuit court's decision; however, in the absence of a showing that the circuit court erred, its interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal. Id. The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Holbrook v. Healthport, Inc. , 2014 Ark. 146, 432 S.W.3d 593. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, this court determines legislative intent from the ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. In considering the meaning of a statute, this court construes it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Id.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16–46–107 provides as follows:
In this case, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that section 16–46–107 did not apply to the estimates. The statute states the patient shall be competent to identify bills "for expenses incurred. " Ark. Code Ann. § 16–46–107 (Repl. 1999) (emphasis added). Dale admitted that the documents showed only estimates for future expenses and that he had not incurred those expenses. Accordingly, we find no reversible error on this point.
Dale next argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the estimates were inadmissible hearsay because he did not offer the testimony of the custodians. He asserts that the estimates are admissible under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Steffy v. City of Fort Smith, CR–17–578
-
Brinkley Sch. Dist. v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P.
...60(a) motion that was filed within ten days of the order that the motion challenged (as was the case here).Then came Dale v. White , 2018 Ark. App. 172, 545 S.W.3d 812, in which this court held that Rule 4(b)'s deemed-denied rule did not apply because the Rule 60 motion was filed more than ......
-
Hargis v. Hargis, CV-17-771
...on appeal in order to reverse, which we are not to do. See Cummings v. Boyles , 242 Ark. 923, 415 S.W.2d 571 (1967) ; Dale v. White , 2018 Ark. App. 172, 545 S.W.3d 812. "We do not reach out and find an unargued issue on which to reverse a trial court." White v. Winston , 302 Ark. 345, 349,......
-
Brown v. Shipley
...a party's failure to obtain a ruling is a procedural bar to this court's consideration of the issue on appeal. Dale v. White , 2018 Ark. App. 172, at 5, 545 S.W.3d 812, 816.2. Contempt Brown reiterates her argument that she was unable to present evidence of damage at the trial, framing it a......