Arkansas Expert Witness Rules: What Litigators Need to Know

Expert witness testimony is a cornerstone of civil litigation in Arkansas, especially in complex cases involving medical malpractice, product liability, and technical evidence. The state adheres to structured rules regarding the disclosure, discovery, and admissibility of expert opinions, with procedural standards grounded in both the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Failure to comply with disclosure deadlines or evidentiary standards can result in exclusion, making strategic and timely handling of experts critical to case success.

Designation Requirements

Arkansas does not use a separate motion-based expert designation process. Instead, experts are disclosed through interrogatory responses, pretrial disclosures, and court-ordered scheduling orders, as governed by Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and Rule 37.

Each party must disclose:

• The identity of the expert
• The subject matter of the testimony
• A summary of the opinions
• The basis and reasons for those opinions
• The expert’s qualifications

While formal expert reports are not required in every case, failure to provide adequate information through disclosures may result in sanctions or exclusion of testimony under Ark. R. Civ. P. 37(b), particularly when such failure causes prejudice or surprise.

Expert Disclosure Process

Expert disclosures in Arkansas proceed largely through written discovery and deadlines set by pretrial scheduling orders. Under Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i), parties may obtain:

• A summary of the expert's opinions
• The grounds for each opinion
• Supporting materials or data
• Information on compensation and prior testimony

Depositions of testifying experts are permitted following these disclosures. In practice, detailed summaries or reports are encouraged, particularly in technical or scientific cases, to avoid disputes over the sufficiency of disclosure.

In medical malpractice actions, Arkansas imposes additional procedural requirements to demonstrate that the claim is supported by qualified expert opinion, discussed below.

Required Declarations

Arkansas does not universally require expert affidavits or declarations at the disclosure stage. However, such materials are necessary for summary judgment motions, especially in cases where expert opinion is required to establish standard of care, causation, or damages.

Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(e), affidavits must:

• Be based on personal knowledge
• Set forth admissible facts
• Show the expert is competent to testify

In medical malpractice cases, Arkansas law once required an expert affidavit or certificate of merit under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209, but the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that provision unconstitutional in Summers v. Martin, 191 S.W.3d 781 (Ark. 2004). Nonetheless, plaintiffs must still produce expert evidence at the summary judgment phase or risk dismissal.

Fees and Compensation

Expert witness compensation in Arkansas is subject to private agreement between the expert and the retaining party. There are no statutory fee caps, but fees must be reasonable and proportional to the expert’s experience and the complexity of the case.

If a party seeks to depose an opposing expert, Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C) requires that the deposing party pay the expert a reasonable fee for the time spent in deposition. Courts may intervene in disputes over excessive rates or attempts to use compensation to delay or obstruct discovery.

Discovery Scope and Limitations

Under Rule 26(b)(4), Arkansas permits discovery of expert witnesses through:

• Interrogatories
• Requests for production
• Depositions

Parties may obtain the expert’s opinions, the basis for those opinions, materials reviewed, compensation arrangements, and prior testimony. However, discovery of consulting experts—those retained but not expected to testify—is not permitted unless there is a showing of exceptional circumstances.

Work-product protections may apply to draft reports or communications between the expert and counsel. However, factual materials and data relied upon in forming the expert’s opinions are discoverable.

Admissibility Standards

Arkansas applies a Daubert-style standard under Ark. R. Evid. 702, but also retains elements of the Frye general acceptance test, particularly for scientific evidence. The Arkansas Supreme Court in Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2000), recognized trial courts’ gatekeeping role in assessing expert reliability and relevance.

To be admissible, expert testimony must:

1. Be offered by a qualified expert
2. Help the trier of fact understand evidence or determine a fact in issue
3. Be based on reliable principles and methods
4. Apply those methods reliably to the facts of the case

Arkansas courts have discretion to conduct pretrial hearings to determine admissibility, particularly when the expert testimony is based on novel or disputed methodologies. An expert’s credentials alone are insufficient—courts focus on whether the reasoning and methodology underlying the opinion are scientifically valid and applicable to the facts at issue.

Key Deadlines & Strategy Notes

Deadlines for expert disclosure are typically set in the scheduling order issued by the court. These may vary by jurisdiction, judge, and complexity of the case, but often follow this pattern:

• Plaintiff’s expert disclosure: 90–120 days before trial
• Defendant’s expert disclosure: 30–60 days later
• Rebuttal disclosures: Close to discovery deadline
• Motions to exclude experts: Due before the pretrial conference or by court order

In medical negligence and technical tort cases, early retention and thorough vetting of experts is critical. Because Arkansas courts increasingly apply rigorous Daubert analysis, experts must be prepared to defend not only their conclusions but also the methods and assumptions underlying their opinions.

State-Specific Statutes & Local Rules

• Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4): Expert discovery and disclosure rules
• Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(e): Summary judgment affidavit requirements
• Ark. R. Evid. 702: Admissibility of expert testimony
• Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2000): Clarified trial court’s gatekeeping responsibility under Rule 702
• Summers v. Martin, 191 S.W.3d 781 (Ark. 2004): Invalidated affidavit of merit statute in med-mal cases

While Arkansas does not mandate uniform statewide scheduling orders, some judicial districts have adopted standing protocols for discovery, including expert deadlines. Practitioners should consult local court rules and preferences to ensure procedural compliance.