Page:Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.pdf/10

 procedure." Moreover, we have held that the rules of evidence are rules falling within this court's domain. See Ricarte v. State, 290 Ark. 100, 717 S.W.2d 488 (1986). Our review of the plain language of the medical-costs provision reveals that the instant statute promulgates a rule of evidence. Here, the provision clearly limits the evidence that may be introduced relating to the value of medical expenses to the amount of medical expenses paid or the amount to be paid by a plaintiff or on a plaintiff's behalf, thereby dictating what evidence is admissible. Because rules regarding the admissibility of evidence are within our province, we hold that the medical-costs provision also violates separation of powers under Article 4, § 2 and Amendment 80, § 3 of the Arkansas Constitution and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

Because we conclude that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-212(b) is unconstitutional based on the stated grounds, we do not address the remaining constitutional challenges to this statute presented by the petitioners.

Certified questions answered. Rh