Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297 (2026)

Seriously mentally ill; county responsibility; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

11-297. Seriously mentally ill; county responsibility; definition

A. Notwithstanding section 11-291:

1. A county that has a population of less than six hundred thousand persons must provide the benefit levels and categories of services for the behavioral health treatment, behavioral health hospitalization and behavioral health medical care of persons who are seriously mentally ill as required by law as of January 1, 2001.

2. A county that has a population of more than six hundred thousand persons but less than two million persons and that has an intergovernmental agreement with the department of health services in effect as of January 1, 2001 for the delivery of behavioral health and mental health care services must maintain an agreement with this state to provide for the integration of the system at the same funding amount, except for the funding for court-ordered screening and evaluation pursuant to title 36, chapter 5, article 4.

3. A county that has a population of more than two million persons and that has an intergovernmental agreement with the department of health services in effect as of January 1, 2001 for the delivery of services to the seriously mentally ill must maintain an agreement with this state to provide for the integration of the system at the same terms and funding amount and with a mutually agreed on annual adjustment for inflation.

B. For the purposes of this section, "seriously mentally ill" has the same meaning prescribed in section 36-550.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “First, the County claims that its determination of the eligibility of all patients for County health benefits was controlled by the following provisions of former § 11-297: (E) Each person desiring to be classified as an indigent pursuant to subsection B of this section shall…”

Walter O. Boswell Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Yavapai Cnty., 714 P.2d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 28× “A.R.S. § 11-297 defines indigency for purposes of receiving medical benefits in terms of residency, income and resources.”

St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa Cnty., 635 P.2d 527 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 8× “Joseph’s also asserts that McLain was an “employable of sworn low income” as described in A.R.S. § 11-297(A). On these bases, St. Joseph’s claims that it was entitled to reimbursement for providing medical care to McLain.”

Valenciano v. Bateman, 323 F. Supp. 600 (D. Ariz. 1971). · cites it 9× “In Board of Supervisors, supra, the Arizona Court of Appeals held unconstitutional, in light of Shapiro , the residency requirements of the same statute being considered here, A.R.S. 11-297, holding inter alia that fiscal expediency is an invalid purpose in any event.”

St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa Cnty., 688 P.2d 986 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 3× “As initially enacted A.R.S. § 11-297 contained a single qualification on residency— an indigent had to have been a resident of the county for 12 months before the county was responsible for his medical care.”

Marshall v. Williams, 627 P.2d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “§ 11-291 and that the delegation of authority to the Department of Economic Security to define indigency under A.R.S. § 11-297 was unconstitutional. The trial court denied appellants' motion and granted appellees' motion for partial summary judgment.”

Kurti v. Maricopa Cnty., 33 P.3d 499 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “” 2 ¶3 Similarly, the eligibility requirements for the county’s indigent health care program contained in A.R.S. §§ 11-297(B)(5) and 11-291(A) incorporate the eligibility limitations set forth in A.”

Cochise Cnty. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 825 P.2d 968 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “nacted the state’s counterpart to the federal Medicaid program, it included the following provisions: Any person who is a resident of this state may qualify for state assisted care for the medically needy under this article by demonstrating compliance with this section, except…”

St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa Cnty., 786 P.2d 983 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 18× “In this case, the same legislature which has codified our community property law enacted A.R.S. § 11-297. St. Joseph’s also cites Herrera v.”

Phoenix Mem'l Hosp. v. Sebelius, 622 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2010). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 11-297, 36-2905, 36-2905.”

Romo v. Kirschner, 889 P.2d 32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. §§ 11-297(E)(1) and 36-2905(E)(l).”

Vaughan v. Bower, 313 F. Supp. 37 (D. Ariz. 1970). · cites it 2× “Since this point was neither briefed on written memorandum nor argued orally, the Court will consider the point to have been abandoned.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297(A) — 4 cases

St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa Cnty., 635 P.2d 527 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “Joseph’s also asserts that McLain was an “employable of sworn low income” as described in A.R.S. § 11-297(A). On these bases, St. Joseph’s claims that it was entitled to reimbursement for providing medical care to McLain.”

John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 96 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “First, the County claims that its determination of the eligibility of all patients for County health benefits was controlled by the following provisions of former § 11-297: (E) Each person desiring to be classified as an indigent pursuant to subsection B of this section shall…”

St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa Cnty., 688 P.2d 986 (Ariz. 1984). “As initially enacted A.R.S. § 11-297 contained a single qualification on residency— an indigent had to have been a resident of the county for 12 months before the county was responsible for his medical care.”

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez, 550 P.3d 153 (Ariz. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297(B) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297(B)(2) — 2 cases

Walter O. Boswell Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Yavapai Cnty., 714 P.2d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “A.R.S. § 11-297 defines indigency for purposes of receiving medical benefits in terms of residency, income and resources.”

St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Maricopa Cnty., 786 P.2d 983 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “In this case, the same legislature which has codified our community property law enacted A.R.S. § 11-297. St. Joseph’s also cites Herrera v.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297(B)(5) — 1 case

Kurti v. Maricopa Cnty., 33 P.3d 499 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “” 2 ¶3 Similarly, the eligibility requirements for the county’s indigent health care program contained in A.R.S. §§ 11-297(B)(5) and 11-291(A) incorporate the eligibility limitations set forth in A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297(E) — 1 case

Guibault v. Pima Cnty., 778 P.2d 1342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-297(E)(1) — 3 cases

Romo v. Kirschner, 889 P.2d 32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “See also A.R.S. §§ 11-297(E)(1) and 36-2905(E)(l).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.