that in prior decisions, this court has dealt with the issue of duty of care owed in medical-malpractice cases in terms of the standard of care offered by providers of the same specialty in the same or similar locality. That standard is fixed by the General Assembly and reads as follows: (a) In any action for medical injury, when the asserted negligence does not lie within the jury’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving: (1) By means of expert testimony provided only by a medical care provider of the same specialty as the defendant, the degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by members of the profession of the medical care provider in good standing, engaged in the same type of practice or spec .2d 636 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Courteau v. Dodd, 299 Ark. 380, 773 S.W.2d
holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that where appellant failed to meet proof with proof in the form of expert testimony to demonstrate that appelleedoctor violated appropriate standard of care trial court did not err in granting appelleedoctors summaryjudgment motion holding that where appellant failed to present either expert or lay testimony as to the appropriate standard of care to be used appellant failed to present any evidence indicating the existence of an issue of fact thus summary judgment was proper holding the appellant was deemed to have abandoned an issue for which he failed to provide any argument or supporting authority