{
  "id": 6136390,
  "name": "STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Willie Lee HILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1994-10-05",
  "docket_number": "CA 93-918",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 Ark. App. 21"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "883 S.W.2d 867"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "138 N.W.2d 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Wis.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8671060
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis-2d/29/0395-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 U.S. 540",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8297439
      ],
      "year": 1903,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/190/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885484
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0409-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 335,
    "char_count": 4017,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.913,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17484571494322643
    },
    "sha256": "2489ff80605f760946dbf3bd3b64274538fd23bf7cd7b872a984acb81fbf8336",
    "simhash": "1:2740e159aeff95c0",
    "word_count": 674
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:43.647094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Pittman and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Willie Lee HILL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings,\nChief Judge. On September 9, 1989, Willie Hill was injured in an automobile accident when her vehicle was struck from behind. Her injury was apparently a neck strain or sprain. She saw Dr. Michael Courtney, a Pine Bluff chiropractor, and incurred bills totalling just over $5,000.00. When she made a claim against her automobile insurance carrier, State Farm, it paid her only $1,400.00 and Mrs. Hill sued for the difference.\nThe sole issue at trial was the amount owed. The maximum payable under the policy was $5,000.00.\nAt trial, Dr. Courtney testified in some detail about his care of the plaintiff. He saw her on 117 occasions during the year that he treated her. He released her on September 21, 1990, as having \u201creached her maximum healing period.\u201d In defense, appellant called Dr. Melvin Rose, also a chiropractic physician. Dr. Rose testified that, in his opinion, reasonable care for Mrs. Hill\u2019s problems would include no more than twenty-eight visits for treatment. The policy of insurance issued to Mrs. Hill obligates State Farm to pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses.\nDuring the course of Dr. Rose\u2019s testimony the trial court, on its own motion, granted Mrs. Hill a directed verdict. In so doing, the court stated that it was \u201crelying on a recent decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that seems to suggest if the injury for which the plaintiff seeks treatment is related to the accident then it is not necessary that the plaintiff prove that they [medical expenses] were reasonable and necessary.\u201d\nThe decision that the trial court relied on is Ponder v. Cartmell, 301 Ark. 409, 784 S.W.2d 758 (1990). Ponder was a suit in tort. One issue raised by the defendant was whether the treating physician had misdiagnosed the plaintiff\u2019s injury and performed unnecessary surgery. The supreme court, in a four-three decision, determined that the admission of this evidence was error. The court said, \u201c[S]o long as an individual has used reasonable care in selecting a physician, she is entitled to recover from the wrongdoer to the full extent of her injury, even though the physician fails to use the remedy or method most approved in similar cases or adopt the best means of cure.\u201d In support, the court relied on \u00a7 457 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The court also said:\nIt is true that a plaintiff who seeks to recover medical expenses must prove the expenses are reasonable and necessary. \u201cNecessary\u201d means causally related to the tort-feasor\u2019s negligence. If a plaintiff proves that her need to seek medical care was precipitated by the tortfeasor\u2019s negligence, then the expenses for the care she receives, whether or not the care is medically necessary, are recoverable. [Citations omitted.]\nAppellant argues that the rule enunciated in Ponder is a tort principle, inapplicable in a contract case. We agree. The reason for the distinction is explained in a decision by Mr. Justice Holmes in Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540 (1903), which appellant cites:\nWhen a man commits a tort he incurs by force of the law a liability to damages, measured by certain rules. When a man makes a contract he incurs by force of the law a liability to damages, unless a certain promised event comes to pass. But unlike the case of torts, as the contract is by mutual consent, the parties themselves, expressly or by implication, fix the rule by which the damages are to be measured.\nWe conclude that Ponder is inapplicable to a suit based on breach of contract. See also Koczka v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 29 Wis.2d 395, 138 N.W.2d 737 (1966).\nReversed and Remanded.\nPittman and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Jeffrey A. Weber and Beverly A. Rowlett, for appellant.",
      "Gary Eubanks & Associates, by: William Gary Holt and James Gerard Schulze, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Willie Lee HILL\nCA 93-918\n883 S.W.2d 867\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered October 5, 1994\nHuckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Jeffrey A. Weber and Beverly A. Rowlett, for appellant.\nGary Eubanks & Associates, by: William Gary Holt and James Gerard Schulze, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 45
}