{
  "id": 1876570,
  "name": "SOUTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES INSTITUTE, INC. v. Shirley A. MITCHELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southwestern Human Services Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "1985-09-30",
  "docket_number": "85-72",
  "first_page": "59",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "287 Ark. 59"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "696 S.W.2d 722"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 3718,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.919,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1329240581850794e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5764005932392198
    },
    "sha256": "cb54d9656338b6f7b86ae4edf25044a71465a67f9a3f68182bac7d44af442c13",
    "simhash": "1:9abf9672d808793a",
    "word_count": 581
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:15.669869+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle and Hays, JJ., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES INSTITUTE, INC. v. Shirley A. MITCHELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant, Southwestern Human Services Institute, Inc., provided psychotherapy and related services to appellee, Shirley Mitchell, from December 17, 1981 to September 7,1982. Appellee did not pay for the services. On July 9,1984, more than twenty-two months after the services had been provided, appellant filed suit to collect the debt. One of the statutes of limitations then in effect, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 37-245 (Supp. 1985), provided that a \u201cphysician or other medical service provider\u201d must file a suit to collect a debt for \u201cmedical services\u201d within eighteen months from the date the services were provided. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the debt was barred by the above cited statute of limitations.\nAppellant filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit was executed by Douglas Stevens, appellant\u2019s president, and it provided in part:\n2. That no medical services were provided Ms. Mitchell by Southwestern Human Services Institute, Inc., that I am not a physician, that neither I nor anyone associated with Southwestern Human Services Institute, Inc., provide medical services to anyone, that Southwestern Human Services Institute, Inc., is not a medical provider or provider of medical services and that I am licensed and permitted only to engage in the field of psychology testing, therapy and evaluation.\n6. That the direct services rendered Ms. Mitchell consisted of psychotherapy, evaluations, and rehabilitation sessions and that the court related services were for preparation and testimony in two separate Worker\u2019s Compensation court hearings.\nThe moving party, appellee, did not respond to the affidavit. The trial court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial and that the evidence submitted showed that appellant\u2019s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse and remand.\nAppellant\u2019s employee, Douglas Stevens, does not hold a medical degree. He is a psychologist. Psychologists are expressly prohibited from \u201cin any way infringing upon the practice of medicine as defined in the laws of this State.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 72-1502(c) (Supp. 1985). Appellant\u2019s employee clearly is not a physician and is prohibited from practicing medicine. The only way appellant possibly could be included within the statute is if appellant could be considered as an \u201cother medical service provider.\u201d Psychologists do not normally provide medical services and are not governed by the medical board. Instead, they have their own board. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 72-1519 (Supp. 1985). Stevens\u2019 affidavit recites facts which show he did not provide medical care in this case.\nThe appellee argued below that a different statute defined \u201cmedical care provider\u201d to include psychologists. That statute, \u00a7 34-2613(B) (Supp. 1985), involves an entirely different act, the doctors\u2019 protective act for malpractice cases. In addition, that act expressly provides that the term applies \u201c [a]s used in this chapter.\u201d \u00a7 34-2613. It was not intended to be applied to the statute which is at issue in the case at bar.\nThe practice of psychology, as set out by the affidavit in this case, does not constitute the providing of medical service. Therefore, the eighteen month statute of limitations for providers of medical service is not applicable, and the case should not have been dismissed.\nWe reverse and remand for further proceedings.\nPurtle and Hays, JJ., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry & Duckett, by: Richard L. Lawrence, for appellant.",
      "No response by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES INSTITUTE, INC. v. Shirley A. MITCHELL\n85-72\n696 S.W.2d 722\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 30, 1985\nHenry & Duckett, by: Richard L. Lawrence, for appellant.\nNo response by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0059-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 91
}