On November 5, 2026, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued an important decision for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. In H.C., L.S., R.T., and T.K. v. James Darrell Nesmith, the court upheld the legislature’s authority to revive civil claims that earlier filing deadlines had barred. It overturned longstanding precedent that had prevented survivors from using the opportunity lawmakers created for them.
At Jenner Law, we congratulate the survivors and their attorneys, Joshua D. Gillispie of Green & Gillispie and Brian G. Brooks. Their persistence helped secure a ruling with consequences well beyond these four plaintiffs. After losing in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the survivors continued seeking review—and persuaded Arkansas’s highest court to reconsider its own law.
The decision carries a timely message for Massachusetts. As lawmakers prepare for the upcoming legislative session, they should build on pending reform efforts and give survivors a meaningful path to recovery. Arkansas and Maryland offer different models for reopening the courthouse doors. Massachusetts should learn from both.
The Survivors Behind the Appeal
The four plaintiffs allege that Nesmith sexually abused them as children between 1995 and 2007. Three say he abused them during medical appointments, when he was a pediatrician. The fourth alleges abuse at Nesmith’s home and at a church camp where he served as a counselor. Their claims seek damages for sexual assault, sexual battery, and extreme emotional distress.
The dispute concerned whether the legislature had the constitutional power to revive their expired claims. Nesmith relied on Arkansas precedent holding that an expired limitations period gave a defendant a vested right to keep that defense. Under those decisions, lawmakers could extend a deadline that had not expired, but could not revive a claim once the deadline had passed.
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed because it was bound by the Supreme Court’s precedent. The survivors then asked the Supreme Court to reexamine that precedent.
For a free legal consultation, call,
(888) 585-2188
Why the Ruling Matters
The Supreme Court accepted that invitation. Writing for the majority, Justice Nicholas J. Bronni explained that the court’s categorical prohibition against reviving expired claims lacked a constitutional foundation. The majority traced that prohibition to earlier decisions resting on assertions about vested rights rather than a constitutional rule requiring that result.
The court therefore overruled its prior decisions categorically prohibiting revival, rejected Nesmith’s constitutional challenge, reversed the dismissal, and returned the lawsuit for further proceedings.
That is a substantial victory, although it does not establish that Nesmith is liable or determine what compensation the plaintiffs should receive. The survivors must still prove their claims. The ruling removes the constitutional obstacle that had prevented them from proceeding under the revival law.
Recognizing the Lawyers Who Kept Fighting
Gillispie and Brooks deserve recognition for challenging controlling precedent and preserving their clients’ opportunity to seek review after successive dismissals. Their clients deserve recognition for continuing through years of uncertainty. We congratulate these survivors and their legal team for securing a meaningful opportunity to pursue accountability.
Complete a Free Case Evaluation form now
Arkansas and Maryland Take Different Approaches to Older Claims
Arkansas separates the elimination of ongoing deadlines from the revival of expired claims. Section 16-118-118(b)(1), as amended in 2023, eliminates the civil filing deadline for covered claims that were still timely, removing the former age-55 limit. The law reaches alleged perpetrators and parties whose tortious conduct caused the abuse. Its definition of a vulnerable victim includes someone who was a minor when abused, as well as certain people with disabilities.
For previously barred claims, subsection (b)(2) establishes a temporary revival window. The amended window opened February 1, 2024, and ran through January 31, 2026. It did not create a permanent opportunity to file every previously expired claim.
That distinction is essential to understanding the November 5 ruling. The Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s power to revive these claims; it did not enact a new window or extend the existing one. Survivors who did not file during the window need an individualized assessment of whether another legal basis permits a claim. The decision should not be read as an announcement that every older Arkansas claim can now be filed.
Maryland chose a broader approach to revival. Its Child Victims Act, effective October 1, 2023, eliminated the civil filing deadline for childhood sexual abuse claims and revived previously barred claims without a temporary closing date. Maryland therefore provides permanent revival rather than a limited look-back window.
Call or text (888) 585-2188 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form
A Shared Constitutional Principle
Maryland’s highest court upheld its Child Victims Act as applied to the defendants before it on February 3, 2025. In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. John Doe and companion cases, the court held that the disputed earlier deadline was an ordinary statute of limitations whose expiration created no vested right against liability. Both states’ decisions support legislative authority to revive claims, although each rests on its own constitution and neither controls Massachusetts law.
Maryland Caps Damages While Arkansas’s Abuse Statute Does Not
Maryland’s permanent revival comes with substantial limits on recovery. For revived claims against private defendants—claims that would have been time-barred before October 1, 2023—the noneconomic damages cap is $1.5 million for actions filed through May 31, 2025, and $700,000 for actions filed on or after June 1, 2025. The limit applies to a single claimant against a single defendant.
Noneconomic damages compensate for harms such as emotional suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The $700,000 limit is not a ceiling on all compensation against a private defendant: the special cap does not include proven economic losses, such as treatment expenses or lost earnings.
Separate provisions govern Maryland’s public defendants. For qualifying revived claims filed on or after June 1, 2025, the statutes limit liability to $400,000 per claimant against the State, local governments, and county boards of education. Those provisions address overall liability, rather than only noneconomic damages. The corresponding statutory amount for earlier-filed childhood sexual abuse claims is generally $890,000, subject to applicable immunity rules.
Arkansas’s Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sexual Abuse Act contains no comparable dollar cap. Section 16-118-118(d) authorizes actual, compensatory, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief. That does not guarantee a particular recovery or resolve separate immunity, insurance, or collectability issues. It means the abuse statute itself does not impose Maryland’s specific financial ceilings.
Massachusetts Should Act on Both Filing Deadlines and Recovery
Massachusetts lawmakers do not need to begin from scratch. Proposals already before the Legislature seek to expand remedies for childhood sexual abuse survivors. They include Senate Bill 1169, sponsored by Senator Joan Lovely, addressing limitations and damages restrictions. An approach under negotiation in the current session would eliminate the civil filing deadline, create a two-year revival window, and remove the $20,000 charitable immunity cap for these claims.
The upcoming session offers another opportunity to finish this work if the current Legislature does not enact it. The need is immediate. In September 2026, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell released an investigation into the Catholic dioceses of Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester. Her office reported evidence that more than 270 clerics abused nearly 1,000 children and called for eliminating the civil limitations period, creating an indefinite revival opportunity, and removing the charitable immunity cap.
Massachusetts should adopt permanent revival. Arkansas illustrates the value of a look-back window, but also its limits: a survivor who is unable to come forward before the window closes can again face a time bar. Maryland’s permanent approach avoids imposing another deadline on people whose ability to disclose abuse may develop over decades. A temporary window would still offer important relief, but lawmakers should aim for lasting access.
Reform must also reach institutions whose negligence allowed abuse to occur or continue. A claim against an individual abuser may offer little practical recovery. Examining institutional conduct can provide a means to seek compensation and uncover what leaders knew, how they responded, and whether other children were exposed to danger. Survivors must still prove a legal basis for holding any institution responsible.
Massachusetts’s charitable liability cap is a separate obstacle. Where it applies, General Laws chapter 231, section 85K generally limits tort liability for conduct carrying out a charity’s purposes to $20,000, excluding interest and costs. Its application depends on the claim and conduct involved; it is not an automatic ceiling on every abuse lawsuit. Nevertheless, opening a filing window while retaining this restriction can leave survivors with a severely limited remedy. Lawmakers should remove it for childhood sexual abuse claims.
Revival changes access to a remedy; it does not establish liability. Defendants retain the opportunity to contest allegations and evidence. Massachusetts should allow courts to resolve those disputes on their merits, while giving survivors a realistic opportunity for financial recovery.
Helping Clergy Abuse Survivors Nationwide
Massachusetts should provide survivors a fair opportunity to establish what happened, identify those responsible, and seek compensation. The Arkansas survivors and their lawyers have shown why that opportunity is worth fighting for.
Jenner Law represents people nationwide who survived childhood sexual abuse by clergy. We help survivors assess potential claims against those who abused them and institutions whose conduct allowed abuse to occur or continue, working with local counsel where required. Because filing rules and available remedies vary by state, a survivor should not assume that the passage of time ends the opportunity to seek accountability. We welcome the opportunity to listen and explain what options may be available.