Hunter Field

Hunter Field Editor's Note When I first moved to Little Rock, one of the first pieces of real mail that found itself into my box at the was from my eye doctor.

Hunter Field Editor's Note My phone blew up with phone calls and text messages last week.

Hunter Field Editor's Note On paper, Mike Masters agreed to sell his Benton home two separate times last month.

Hunter Field Editor's Note There's an old adage in journalism: Never make yourself a part of the story.

It was nice to see Arkansas’ congressional candidates take the debate stage last week.

Hunter Field Editor's Note Just about every CEO I talk with across the state shares a struggle with all of the others.

Reconciling competing ideals illustrated in a recent Arkansas Business story can be challenging. It's outrageous that a hospital system could face over $500 million in damages for failing to inform patients about their doctor’s practice relocation. However, it's equally troubling that the state intervened and altered the law after patients and their doctor had already initiated legal action against the hospital. This change effectively disregarded the original rules under which the patients sought remedy, without grandfathering them in. Following the amendment, the patients likely abandoned their lawsuits, as the potential damages were capped at a mere 0.1% of what they were originally pursuing. The background reveals that in 2017, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted the Patient Right-to-Know Act, allowing damages of $1,000 per day per violation in response to clinics misleading patients about their doctors. In 2019, after Dr. Leslie Anderson was terminated from St. Vincent Medical Group, he and his patients filed a lawsuit, with class-action status granted in 2022, which was later overturned. The potential damages could have been staggering, prompting the need for legislative change. However, the amended law caps damages at $500,000, which may not sufficiently deter violations, and the lack of a grandfather clause for ongoing litigation raises concerns about fairness and consistency in legal treatment. Changing the rules mid-case undermines the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Last week, while voting early, I found it strange to cast a ballot for a measure, Issue 3, that won’t be counted due to complications in Arkansas' ballot initiative process, which can drag on long enough to require printing ballots before the Supreme Court's decision. This situation highlights systemic issues, particularly how the cannabis industry has mismanaged its efforts, wasting millions in the process. Issue 3 aimed to improve the state's medical marijuana industry by eliminating unnecessary obstacles for patients and providers but also included controversial provisions like a trigger law for recreational marijuana legalization and restrictions on legislative changes to popular amendments. These additional elements contributed to the Supreme Court's decision to disqualify the measure. This pattern echoes the 2022 attempt to legalize recreational cannabis, which failed partly because of perceived monopolistic intentions. Despite the disappointment over the cannabis vote, I encourage voters to participate in the other races and issues, while hoping for reforms to the flawed initiative process that ultimately does not serve the public interest.

Hunter Field Editor's Note The newest company coming to the Port of Little Rock will fit right in here in Arkansas.