*1 1X9 subject probation, disposition such conditions as his was not ex- Governor, prescribed by punged. or his or designee,

her or the United States Bu- just explained, As amendment Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, of reau 5-73-103(b)(2) section not does apply or Explosives, or other bureau office offenders whose cases dismissed designated by Depart- the United States expunged. Because KimbreU’s 1995 Justice, person possess ment of shall plea expunged, was never' he is among been; . any or own firearm who has of people the class to whom the amend (1) of felony; Convicted applies, ment and he therefore lacks stand (2) ill; or Adjudicated mentally ing challenge the constitutionality (3) 5-73-103(b)(2). involuntarily any section State, Committed See Jester v. 367

mental 239 491 institution.' (2006) (“A litigant standing has to chal (b)(1) Except provided subdivi- lenge constitutionality of a if statute (b)(2) (3) section, of this sions law unconstitutional as applied to by jury or a court that a determination particular litigant.” (quoting Ghegan person felony constitutes a committed S.W.2d 536, 539 (1999))). Weiss, 9, 14-15, 991 (a) purposes conviction for subsection f though Af this section even the court irmed. imposition Abramson and Gladwin JJ., agree. or suspended sentence placed probation. defendant (b)(1) Subdivision this section person to a case apply

does not whose expunged under dismissed and § 16-98-303(g).

§ seq. 16-93-301 et added.) Thus, Kimbrell to

(Emphasis standing to attack the constitutionali-

have Ark. App. 5-73-103(b)(2), ty he must be “a of section HOLDINGS, LLC, RUSSELLVILLE dismissed and ex- person case was whose Mary’s Regional Saint Medical d/b/a § seq. et punged under 16-93-301 Turning Center Point Behavior d/b/a § 16-98-303(g).” Health, Appellant al person argues he is a Kimbrell expunged case dismissed or whose PETERS, James Robertson as Personal 16-93-301, at the under section because Representative of Estate of John time the statute disposition his Deceased, Peters, Jr., D. Behalf mandated an automatic expungement Statutory Bene Estate and Its completion probation. of his successful' III; ficiaries; D. James John Peters fails, argument In Kimbrell His however. Peters, Individually; Robertson I, specifically held that the circuit court Stingley, Appellees Kathleen denying not err in motion did Kimbrell’s No. CV-17-58 expunge he seal and his record did his “fulfill terms and conditions” Arkansas, Appeals Court “Kim- probation; held that We further DIVISION II. |flbasis 1995 conviction 'a valid brell’s Opinion October Delivered: charge.” felon-in-possession for the 2014 Rehearing Denied November 10-11, I, Kimbrell Kimbrell at 212. Because failed of his to fulfill the terms and conditions

|¾1. History Facts and Procedural Turning Peters was admitted to following Point the death of his wife years resulting and two attempts. suicide long Peters *3 bipolar Mr. had suffered from of periods anxiety. disorder with severe His second on attempt suicide occurred 10, 2013, December and resulted in emergency-room Mary’s. visit St. inquiry and assessment form that was out in emergency recog- filled room son, nized Mr. Peters’s D. Pe- John (“Jay”), III legal ters Mr. was Peters’s guardian. Notably, both Mr. Peters and Jay signed voluntary for consent ad- 10, mission December 2013. On Decem- 13, 2013, Turning a social worker from ber petition involuntarily Point filed a admit illness, with person mental which County Pope granted Circuit Court on De- Nothing in petition cember acknowledged legal that Mr. had a Peters guardian. Boone, Munson, Rowlett, and Moore 26, 2013, On December Mr. Peters was Rowlett, P.A., L. by: Beverly Timothy A. Turning Point on his discharged from own Boone, Young, Little Mary and Carole recognizance. discharge summary re- Rock, appellant. further sui- that Mr. Peters denied vealed Russellville, Firm, P.A., by: Streett Law ideations; engaged in no he had self- cidal Streett, Streett, A. Alex and G. James since admission and destructive behavior Veach, Russellville; Brian Robert M. and ready discharge; he was future seemed PLLC, Brooks, Law, Attorney by: G. positively very oriented and had interacted Brooks, for appellees. Brian G. peers; it was felt and and with staff hospi-

he had reached maximal benefit MURPHY, Judge MIKE January Peters On talization.1 hanged himself. | medical-malpractice case stems This ¶ Peters, Peters, days D. Jr. Four after the death Mr.

from the death John heirs) (Mr. (“Mr. Peters”), appellees’ Peters’s estate appel- who was admitted and seven-page appel- Turning attorney letter to lant Point Behavioral Health sent Point”), heading “Important Notice (“Turning a unit located at Saint lant with the (“St. Regarding Document and Data Preserva- Mary’s Regional Medical Center release, gave appellant no- upon hanged tion.” This broad letter Mary’s”), his tice and estate Mr. Peters days Appellee ten later. James that the heirs himself tp Peters, investigate a representa- legal personal Robertson retained potential |3claim, noti- estate, appellant of the suit. affirm. tive initiated We days death. summary report was dictated six after Mr. Peters’s 1. The any paper destroy, “not to conceal alter Smith received medical fied scanned. time, At that back once had been scanned.

paper or electronic files....” records discharged patients point February At between records some were, (1) places: copies February portion kept paper in two in the usual paper portion of records scanned the'records shredded business; explained third-party ordinary vendor she course Laserfiche or to por- maliciously this then the electronic done shredded view, destroy point of records her tion the medical was maintained evidence. From superior copy ex- program known as Medi- “a of the computer records 'on .Tech, . the time the isted Laserfiche portion was shredded.” letter, receipt Cope- Tim

After *4 6, eventually Appellees May officer of filed suit on land,'chief'quality Russellville (another to, during of, appel- Prior the Holdings, LLC name for course lant) litigation, health-infor- four the medical the director the different'sets told produced, mation-management department, Paula records various for reasons paper portion by Page, the were set out in the affidavit Smith. to sequester Turn-, 2015, In the Subsequently, February records. after contents of the Mr. Peters’s times, changed four ing legal Point retained counsel. records had medical Turning a responded February appellees the on counsel demand Point letter made 7, 2014, original con- of Mr. requesting physical inspection a meet-and-confer Peters’s medical n ' scope particular importance, Of the breadth and chart. ference discuss document-preservation appellees sought to Turning letter. document the actual the follow-up request February original physical Point sent a of the chart it content 14, 2014, respond- day had not was on of Mr. Peters’s the later, days attorneys original A con- the chart ed. whether contained few. the. telephone conference, appel- guardianship appellees orders that claimed ducted Point, sent attorney follow-up one-page they provided Turning lees’ but had narrowing preservation Turning contrary. Point It letter down the re- claimed the hospital appellees then that the and the quest. original the medical discovered the same Around before the but time* likely destroyed chart had been Saint occurred, telephone conference Annette Mary’s. Page replaced Smith Paula as health-infor- result, mation-management In motion to appellees an As filed a director. affida- vit, explained compel origi- she their Smith had been access Mr. Peters’s or, alternative, copy of the provided letter the nal chart force hospital regarding Mary’s received document on the and Saint admit record-that . preservation. point destroyed intentionally origi- She said at some data January February late nal In response, appellant between but chart. stated 2014, 10, discovered, inspection not permit she drawer of a that it could of. original it previously Page, used Paula had been de-

desk chart because stroyed. Appellees a motion to. strike Peters’s records. She ex- filed medical answer, plained, ordinary appellant’s arguing as in of busi- that their abili- course ness, complete paper ty took full fair trial obtain a had been she irretrievably compromised as a portion EDCO Health Solu- Information result | ¿medical tions, evidentiary vendor of the third-party that scans destruction Laserfiche, motion, hearing into be After medical records records. Uto

123 that, appeal careful con- circuit fact- circuit court found is whether court’s erroneous, sideration, clearly original ques- findings clearly file against important preponderance to the case that its tion so evidence. adjudi- Boykin, v. just App. essential to a Rial

preservation was (2006). order, 489, Recognition recognized must cation. its court serious, given to superior the circuit striking very an but be court’s answer opportunity credibility determine appellant’s wit conduct to most found weight to given nesses to their egregious. a motion to re- Appellant filed consider, testimony. Id. ap- circuit court denied hearing. Appellant motion after a pellant’s supreme court “spolia Our has defined timely appealed, jurisdiction and we have as “the intentional destruction of evi tion” 2(a)(4), App. Ark. R. which per P.—Civ. established, dence and when it fact [the] .may be taken from appeal states that finder draw inference that may [an] [the] that strikes an In Arnold an order answer. destroyed was unfavorable Schmidt, Display,

Fireworks Inc. party responsible spoliation.” for its [the] (1991), Co., Trucking Ives Harold Goff gen- explained (2000). 146, 27 S.W.3d How of Ark. purpose eral R. P.—Civ. ever, begin analysis by our we must ac *5 (an 2(a)(1) may' a appeal be taken from on knowledging that case law Arkansas n decree) prevent judgment final is spoliation For sparse. example, is this portions of piecemeal appeals the while previously court not addressed has wheth that, quite litigation unresolved but remain spoliation er of medical occurs documents 2(a)(4) differently, App. Ark. R. P.—Civ. con the scanned when documents piecemeal approach. allows a format. The spoliation verted to another tangible involve evi cases Arkansas appeal, appellant On three argues lamp dence, halogen as (1) such and a wa of points: the court erred as a matter clamp bolt. See Bunn Build ter-pipe finding of evidence spoliation law that ers, Womack, 231, 2011 Ark. occurred; (2) Inc. v. as the a matter court erred 2062393; Rodgers also , letters, see finding WL CWR appellees’ law Constr., Inc., filed, long any unilat- sent suit was duty pa- (2000).

erally imposed preserve the rec- per copy paper portion the of the thát a circuit Our court held supreme ord; (3) imposing the court erred in required specific court not to make a striking extraordinary the the sanction part of the finding faith the of bad on answer. Builders, spoliator. supra. Bunn Unlike hand, in Bunn plaintiffs the the case at Spoliation II. Evidence jury sought implement instruc- Builders the striking from court’s than appeal spoliation tions on rather On circuit issue, Builders, at 2011 Ark. purely legal of a we answer. Bunn determination guidance Regardless, it in our only if its of the 2. serves decide interpretation must actually correct, oc- give spoliation on whether analysis as we deference law was Builders, the circuit court question on In Bunn the circuit court’s curred. conclusion Partners, duty an LLC, parties the v. Limestone found that had law. Kraft the agreement preserve the evidence 522 S.W.3d behind the the motive de- 153. a case is tried a circuit court case but When sitting | (¡without was unclear and on jury, inquiry the struction

granted |7that on found that had been jury be instructed (2) | ^intentionally destroyed; lost spoliation. appellants appealed, ar- Id. permitted circuit had ar- court in in-

guing that the circuit court erred points though in- gue the same even structing jury spoliation on because jury; were not structions submitted finding by initial court was no there shortly evidence was available faith. destruction was done in bad accident, no meaningful after the dis- supreme explained that Ar- Id. The years covery commenced until five specifically courts held kansas have never following Id. The accident. that a circuit court must find intentional inten- any court held that absence “[i]n suppress indicating a desire destruction misconduct, say tional cannot that the spoliation before a the truth instruction its abused fail- circuit court discretion Therefore, at 10. given. can be Id. ing give jury spoli- instruction on finding supreme court concluded ation Id. of evidence.” notable differ- One spoliator is not bad faith behalf Rodgers ence in is that the case had been necessary. Id. initiated, yet discovery was conducted Builders The court Bunn relied until years five the case later. Rodgers guidance. Rodgers injured yet been initiated when the evidence in a construction-site accident when a sec destroyed. was considered pipe suspended tion of water that was Appellant argues first ceiling from the fell and struck him as he not occur medical records did out of an pulling feeder wires electri the paper portion of Mr. Peters’s medical panel in of the Pulaski cal the basement records was not until shredded County Rodgers, swpra. Courthouse. paper portion of record had entire parties stipulated appellee, been scanned Laserfiche. contractor, clamp had lost the bolt important to appellees should *6 pipe ceiling that the to held water the opportunity inspect have had an to the occurred, ap before accident and the the chart it physical paper as existed when pellants requested a instruction. discharged, appellees as Peters was 129, Rodgers, 343 Ark. at 33 at 508. S.W.3d adequate- that Mr. Peters was contend not rejected jury a The circuit court non-AMI ly treating physician, the Dr. assessed propounded by the appellants, instruction Additionally, it to important Stinnett. is noting clamp that the bolt were avail appellees copies to know of the whether appellants’ at time able the the lawsuit guardianship in orders were the file appellants pre the initiated that appellant wrongfully to show that dis- proof that the contractor willful sented charged consulting Mr. Peters without his ly or intentionally destroyed lost the evi guardian. Appellant explained that it is its dence. Id. policy recognize to guardianship orders Rodgers, appellants

On in appeal in only patient’s if are located argued that the record reflected that Appellant further contends medical chart. physical contractor had possession been the electronic version the record control of pipe, clamp, order, and bolt it guardianship not contain so a did Rodgers, involved in the accident. Ark. 343 must not have been the record because 130, at 33 at 510-11. The copy replica. S.W.3d an exact On electronic is contrary, appellees argue having court affirmed the circuit court’s decision chart, reject, appellants’ spoliation inspect instructions the actual opportunity |fldischarge, specifically the circuit court it time of because as existed at the

125 | Duty Appellees assert to Preserve could reflect otherwise. mill. actual genuine dispute

that a to the as. courts have Other held that day on content of the medical record duty preserve whether evidence exists way to only that the discharge exists and question is a of law the court. Cocker origi- this issue is to examine the resolve Menendez, 596, N.J.Super. line v. 411 988 accept appel- agree and decline 2010). nal. We (App. Div. This A.2d logic lant’s not defer to the circuit court on a does duplicate destroyed. Caughron, question of law. Clark v. was made before was App. at S.W.3d We novo, as on appellees’ prove is burden review the issue de review It law, simply any question apply dis wrongfully Mr. Peters was State, applicable law. Muhammad charged, appellees do so need (1999). discharge notes revealed know what day of Mr. Peters’s release and wheth 37(b)(2), Ark. R. Civ. P. Under his wrongfully Dr. released Stinnett er. if party destroys risks sanctions he or she recognizance, patient his own evidence after or other documents It guardianship the file. is order existed compelling order court has issued an dis fact- require well established order, for covery protective or a destruc proof, its finder to base decision com tion constitutes an obvious failure to conjecture. Rodgers, speculation mere ply with the the rule does order. 509-10. expressly address the destruction of parties litigation and the would has fact-flnder relevant documents complaint speculate as to commenced has been required what sought the documents are filed but before actu of documents and what was

the stack Newbern, discovery. 2 via David John J. caregivers in front of ally when Jr, Watkins, & Marshall Brandon J. D.P. Mr. Peters was decision Harrison, Civil Practice & Pro Arkansas Moreover, analysis, man for our made. (5th 2017). Arkansas, § 21:16 ed. cedure destroyed the rec appellant ner in which very is clear in criminal cases the standard because, is ords irrelevant determined duty to preserve the State’s Builders, finding of faith bad Bunn “might expected limited to which necessary. in the play significant suspect’s role *7 distinguish the situation hand We both the “evidence must defense” and that preserve in to from one which the letter ap exculpatory an value that was possess came the had been the records after flies destroyed, before the was parent evidence to an electronic format. be of such a nature the defendant converted and that comparable appellees it that sent be to obtain evi we find notable a would unable reasonably by other available dence preserve before letter to the documents State, means.” an destroyed into they were and converted Lee (1997). However, the 942 S.W.2d Rodgers, format. evi- As in the

electronic in duty not so civil cases. is clear following available dence was the death Peters, Rodgers, meaning- but unlike Mr. jurisdictions in other have held Courts commenced, discovery yet had ful destruc- obligation preserve a an to party has that For tion of still occurred. upon receiving the evidence notice relevant reasons, we on this he or should being must affirm sued and when she these to it be relevant future point. may know Inthat Further, a!., reasonably it litigation. supra. Appellees assert that was et Newbern' , § original paper explains that the chart 21:16 foreseeable claim, potential to might be material preserve evi- scope duty The agree. We boundless;” á potential and dence “is not ' only litigant “need what reasonable do | i„We Builders, rely supra, Bum Likewise, the under the circumstances.” There, insight policy. painters into our duty to ex- preserve evidence does not building painting night, late every one’s posses- tend document left, destroyed a fire sion, a responsibility for such would later, building. Days owners .., large corporations “cripple (the building company and the insurance litigation.” always almost involved As pres- items for plaintiffs) retained certain (cid:127) observed, Judge one District has U.S. testing, including halogen ervation and' corporation “to is under hold lamp left painters; that had been duty, potentially preserve e-mail all suit, filing painters’ Before insurance litigation any relevant to would future. defendant) (the re- company sent a'letter holding be tantamount the corpo- to, questing prior be informed it e-mail,” all preserve ration must a result for, any or present inspection examination that would be “especially burdensome The sent letter plaintiffs those items. system e-mail where the used pri- [is] claiming investiga- to defendant marily for communication. routine painters’ negli- tion was result (Citations omitted.) Thereafter, lamp gence. was author- ized to inspection without Eighth destroyed Circuit has ac testing by the The knowledged willing corpora it is less to let defendant. finding court the circuit court’s affirmed policies.

tions their hide behind retention duty agree- parties had a Eighth Lewy Remington Circuit case; preserve in the corporation that “a Aims Co. concluded ment granted request their court blindly destroy cannot ex therefore documents and for a spoliation instruction. pect a'seemingly innocu shielded policy.” 836 ous document retention F.2d Similarly, appellant it is undeniable that 1104, 1112 (8th 1988). Lewy Cir. suit. Appellant on notice potential negligently admonished the defendant for long put litigation notice failing preserve requested the evidence “origi- preserve commenced that it suggested that a court should consider intake, nal related dis- dictation policy the record retention whether Peters, charge, or care of whether considering facts cir “reasonable tape digital, maintained in cassette format surrounding relevant docu cumstances Moreover, appellant ac- otherwise.” Eighth ments.” Id. The Circuit elaborated knowledged originally the request se- Railroad, v. Union Morris Pacific questered appeal, records. On (8th F.3d 896 also look at 2004), Cir. compliance appellant asserts that was *8 company destroying intention of the evi obligations with under Arkansas law dence. regarding preservation the retention and argue that of not appellees a similar medical that is records. apply only in criminal eases should in sufficient was it standard reason- cases; argue ably original appellant civil was that that foreseeable th'e to all to duty preserve potential under a items that would be material records “might claim, potential paper to claim. material” also because records sent, at the time the letter was an answer of an offending party. existed 342 Ark. 150, 27 agreed to It was not

appellant retain them. at at S.W.3d 391. unduly appellant main- burdensome . review-of the record reveals that the 114A tain records. Unlike the exam- 113the circuit court did not reach its decision ple requirement that burdensome a without due consideration. .The con- court corporation preserve all e-mail corre- hearings' ducted two thought- and directed appellant required spondence, questions parties.' 'fact, ful to both records, the.patients’ just all keep court appellees’ admonished reasons, For foregoing Peters’s. cutting off the court’s questions input. duty we find attached. The circuit reject court chose to appel- argument lant’s the electronic copy Striking Answer Sanction an IV. an replica exact therefore consid- imposition rests sanctions an “original.” ered In granting the motion Ramsey v. strike, the circuit in court’s discretion. the court acknowledged that Dodd, 2015 Ark. App. S.W.3d striking 790. answer of party is very judicial system It is crucial to our serious but the conduct was most circuit to con courts retain the discretion egregious as evidenced by the fact imposition trol their dockets discov appellant “clearly placed on notice not Village sanctions. Lake Health Care destroy documents,” yet these critical it er Ctr., Hatchett, LLC v. 2012 Ark. proceeded destroy any- file original supe 521. The circuit court is way. The circuit court further considered S.W.3d mo position judge rior actions alternative the jury spo- instruct litigants, evidence, tives and the circuit court’s liation of but found that it would Id. second-guessed. should rulings given be insufficient importance Accordingly, imposition we review dispute surrounding factual which docu- sanctions, ones, even severe an original recog- under ments We file. Ramsey,

abuse-of-discretion standard. nize we have never a case addressed 4-5, App. at in which the sanction was to strike the A 793. court commits an abuse answer, discre entire option but the so do does tion thoughtlessly, improvi when acts clearly exist. the circuit Because dently, without due appellant willfully consideration. destroyed found that Mickna, Servicing, Loan Ocwen LLC paper medical records and that a curative instruction, insufficient, 2017 WL would be cannot say abused that the court its discretion striking - the answer. Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b)(2)(C) provides fails' to party that if a Affirmed.

obey provide or permit discov- order Virden, J., agrees. ery, pend- the court which the action regard make ing‘may such to the orders Glover, J., concurs. just, including as failure are an order Glover, Judge, concurring. David M. striking rendering pleadings judg- out stan- I affirm this case. Our against reluctantly ment default disobedient imposition for the party. appeal Court noted Arkansas dard review Supreme discretion, Parker the same- sanctions of sanctions abuse available Goff 97, 131 Perry, a discovery under the rules allowed sanction, (2003), high extremely striking which includes which is an thresh- *9 128 question providing that the facts was an orders

old to To hold there 1^overcome. discretion, conclusively refusing or are established it must be shown abuse certain or defenses to be allow thoughtlessly trial and without court acted admitted, “striking Wortz, ordering [of] consideration. Roberts due Here, parts or See Arkansas pleadings 485. thereof." added). 37(b)(2)(C) P. (emphasis con- R. Civ. in-depth hearing record reflects the also jury AMI instruction available. by spoliation. on the ducted the trial court length. Though chosen as party questioned at Each 11fisanction court, Then, later, that if trial court that instruction states several trial weeks loses, sup- intentionally destroys, parties party to the its deci- letter detailed record, knowledge say presses I evidence with the sion. On such a cannot may pending potential to a without be material thoughtlessly court acted tidal claim, may inference be drawn that Through this concur- consideration. due rence, unfavora- however, express grave con- such evidence would have been my I party’s ble to that claim or for the of the sanctions levied defense. cern breadth Holdings against appellant Russellville court struck Russellville the trial paper stemming destruction from for Holdings’ answer as the sanction entire medical records. shredding records. In medical order, original trial court as “the intentional its found Spoliation is defined important” file it is es medical was “so “its destruction of evidence and when just tablished, may preservation adjudi- was essential to [an] fact finder draw [the] issues,” cation of that a curative in- destroyed inference that [the] “given impor- party responsible struction was insufficient was unfavorable to [the] dispute tance of the factual this spoliation.” Rodgers v. CWR case its Constr., surrounding Inc., what documents were 343 Ark. 33 S.W.3d (2000) file,” original Hold- (citing Trucking Harold Ives Russellville v.Goff Co., Inc., ings’ egregious” conduct “most so as require striking of It is Dictionary Law its answer. (citing Black’s (6th 1990))). stringent, clearly, ap- a number of is a sanction Ed. Unlike 37(b)(2). courts, proved under Ark. R. Civ. P. Arkansas courts have never federal finding that there must be a bad held lifting questions There factual two by the trial court intentional de faith appeal. question The first this centers suppress struction a desire to indicating temporary around whether orders spoliation truth instruction guardianship Peters were over permanent Builders, Inc., given. can Bunn file on present his his Womack, 2011 231. His date of December Arkansas, assert the many. The sanctions are children orders delivered hospital requested placed to the to be sanctions violation cover |17Russellville fíne, Holdings to in range options Peters’s file.2 wide —from question by 2. Peters’s counsel narrowed this case, his remarks to the trial regard court: With our we are entitled are entitled to show what was try prove, [W]e because it is at the heart original regards guardian- file in to the case, guardianship of our that those orders orders, ship we could substan- and whether discharge. day were in file on the allegation they provid- tiate our clients’ ed those and were in the file.... *10 argu-

claims the orders were never received. have been some forth backhand had, Holdings other less ment Russellville offered about the discussion (i) giving presented drastic measures such as will be is that what (ii) instruction; spoliation giving guardian a modi- was contacted. instruction, spoliation

fied version hospital day He come to the did making the adverse inference to be drawn discharge. pa- He was advised spoliation from instruction irrebutt- discharge. tient’s presumption opposed able only as question: second factual whether (Hi) one; or precluding rebuttable Russell- discharge pa- the written notes of another Holdings’ from testifying ville witnesses placed tient were in Peters’s file instead guardianship that the orders issue were discharge the written notes Peters. to it As to by appellees. delivered only The trial court origi- referenced “the themselves, the latter options orders two However, nal in its by medical file” order. question they would answer the of whether then, Holdings Russellville had submitted in the file.3 It undisputed would be similar, exact, though four microfiche the orders were received Russellville copies Peters’s medical records. One Later, Holdings. Holdings’ Russellville version Peters’s medical records include counsel’s concessions of fact at the recon- In patient’s another notes. subsequent hearing fully guard- resolve sideration version, patient’s the other medical notes ianship-identity issue: had been removed Peters’s medical dispute There’s this case that the replaced notes had them. The medi- proposed guardian was contacted cal by separate notes were handwritten prior to hospital discharge. Mr. Peters’ Stinnett, defendant Dr. Thomas who dis- no dispute in this case that There’s he charged .Any discharge Peters.4 other hospital. presented He himself came to issue, *11 jury instruction to sanctions—from striking of an entire answer the-wholesale

(which judg- to a default effect amounts believe, liability) as-

ment as when —I sanction, sessing a there must be consider- spoliated as of how the

ation have little to separate count. We each impo- guidance regarding the appellate pre-litigation spolia- for of sanctions

sition - majority acknowl-

tion evidence. any type

edges Arkansas case law (Ark. R. Our Civ.

spoliation sparse. rule 37(b)(2)) a risk of sanc- contemplates

P. or other for destruction documents

tions court has after the issued case, discovery. In this compelling

order expressly does not concede the rule docu- the destruction relevant

address has' litigation commenced.

ments direction, I hopeful am a lack of such

With court will be asked

that-our give direction to the order

review sanctions. and bar

bench SANDERS, Appellant

Darrell Edward Arkansas, Appellee

STATE CR-17-216

No. Arkansas, Appeals

Court

DIVISION I. November 1,

Opinion Delivered: notes could as Dr. Stinnett hospital guardian. did not them but Janu- write dictated them ary over a after Peters commit- 113week dispute There’s no that he met with the 6, 2014), (January ted suicide and those providers. care no dispute There’s notes were not transcribed January until presented that he his contention that the Thus, 17. all were re- records patient discharged should not or that ported. arrangements other should be made. Arkansas, pleading I I repeat. Those facts are and don’t there does not be, may believe that there will there be have be bad intent to find argument, given range some back and forth or could evidence. wide allegation important crucially prove is our in this [I]t case that the What guardianship contained those orders. way or is what was that file one another chart day he left. Applying options the latter two would have Holdings had the effect Russellville admit- pertains What our to is what was lawsuit ting that it had received the That in orders. in the file when that man walked out the turn have alleviated the main concern would surrounding door. the destruction of the medical file. notes are what we treatment team’s day talking discharge. are about from the 4. Peters’s stated: gone. Those thing] other is his actual medical [The go, day let him which records from point the whole of this case.