nonparty-fault provision is unconstitutional based on the stated grounds, we need not address the remaining constitutional challenges to this statute presented by the petitioners.
II. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b)
Petitioners also assert that the medical-costs provision of the CJRA, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b), violates the constitution because: (1) it prevents a plaintiff from recovering the full value of medical services in conflict with the collateral-source rule; (2) it violates the separation-of-powers clause found in Article 4, § 2 and violates Amendment 80, § 3 of the Arkansas Constitution; and (3) it limits the amount that can be recovered for injury to a plaintiff in violation of Article 5, § 32 of the Arkansas Constitution. Respondents aver that the medical-costs provision does not conflict in any way with the collateral-source rule because it does not seek to introduce evidence that other payments were received for a plaintiff's medical bills; rather, they claim, it limits the reasonable value of a plaintiff's expenses to the amount actually paid or to be paid on a plaintiff's behalf. Further, Respondents contend that it does not limit recovery because it does not place a cap, or a dollar limitation, on the amount a plaintiff may recover.
The medical-costs provision of the CJRA reads:
Any evidence of damages for the costs of any necessary medical care, treatment, or services received shall include only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or which remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party shall be legally responsible.
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b) (Supp. 2003) (emphasis added).
It is undisputed that the rules of evidence are "rules of pleading, practice and
