A. If a claim against a licensed professional is asserted in a civil action, the claimant or the claimant's attorney shall certify in a written statement that is filed and served with the claim whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the licensed professional's standard of care or liability for the claim.
B. If the claimant or the claimant's attorney certifies pursuant to subsection A that expert opinion testimony is necessary, the claimant shall serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit with the initial disclosures that are required by rule 26.1, Arizona rules of civil procedure. The claimant may provide affidavits from as many experts as the claimant deems necessary. The preliminary expert opinion affidavit shall contain at least the following information:
1. The expert's qualifications to express an opinion on the licensed professional's standard of care or liability for the claim.
2. The factual basis for each claim against a licensed professional.
3. The licensed professional's acts, errors or omissions that the expert considers to be a violation of the applicable standard of care resulting in liability.
4. The manner in which the licensed professional's acts, errors or omissions caused or contributed to the damages or other relief sought by the claimant.
C. The court may extend the time for compliance with this section on application and good cause shown or by stipulation of the parties to the claim. If the court extends the time for compliance, the court may also adjust the timing and sequence of disclosures that are required from the licensed professional against whom the claim is asserted.
D. If the claimant or the claimant's attorney certifies that expert testimony is not required for its claim and the licensed professional who is defending the claim disputes that certification in good faith, the licensed professional may apply by motion to the court for an order requiring the claimant to obtain and serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under this section. In its motion, the licensed professional shall identify the following:
1. The claim for which it believes expert testimony is needed.
2. The prima facie elements of the claim.
3. The legal or factual basis for its contention that expert opinion testimony is required to establish the standard of care or liability for the claim.
E. After considering the motion and any response, the court shall determine whether the claimant shall comply with this section and, if the court deems that compliance is necessary, shall set a date and terms for compliance. The court shall stay all other proceedings and applicable time periods concerning the claim pending the court's ruling on the motion to compel compliance with this section.
F. The court, on its own motion or the motion of the licensed professional, shall dismiss the claim against the licensed professional without prejudice if the claimant fails to file and serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit after the claimant or the claimant's attorney has certified that an affidavit is necessary or the court has ordered the claimant to file and serve an affidavit.
G. A claimant may supplement a claim or preliminary expert opinion affidavit with additional claims, evidence or expert opinions that are timely disclosed under the Arizona rules of civil procedure or pursuant to court order. An action under this chapter does not preclude a party from using a preliminary expert opinion affidavit for any purpose, including impeachment.
Notes of Decisions
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court, 947 P.2d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 86× “("Hunter"), the contractor in charge, and others for injuries that he attributed to Hunter's failure to maintain a *894 safe construction site. Hunter moved to dismiss Grandinetti's complaint on the ground that it lacked an accompanying expert affidavit as required by A.”
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 61× “1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 180 P.3d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 17× “The trial court dismissed Wilson and Sierra Pest from the action prior to trial because Warner had not filed an expert opinion affidavit as required by A.R.S § 12-2602. The court granted Warner’s motion for summary judgment on Hoggatt’s negligence and SDI’s corresponding…”
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 34× “2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
AA Mech. v. Superior Court, 948 P.2d 492 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 46× “In my view, the Hunter opinion imprudently extended the intended reach of *494 the statute which resulted in the conclusion that it infringed on the fundamental right to pursue a damage action.”
JILLY v. Rayes, 209 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “¶ 5 In Bertleson , we held that a similar statute, A.R.S. § 12-2602 (2000), which required plaintiffs to disclose preliminary expert opinion evidence in cases against licensed professionals, was constitutional.”
Russo v. Barger, 366 P.3d 577 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In addition to the enumerated activities, Russo retained an expert who filed a preliminary expert opinion affidavit pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2602.”
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Maintaining this distinction between nonmedicalbased and medical-related claims, A.R.S. § 12-2602 applies to nonmedical-related claims against a licensed professional and requires the claimant to file a certification stating whether the testimony of an expert will be required to…”
Fong v. City of Phoenix, 551 P.3d 1187 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “] § 12-2602. 218 Ariz. 121, 128, ¶ 14 (App.”
Kestenbaum v. Ford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 62× “B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth Kestenbaum appeals the superior court’s judgment dismissing his veterinary malpractice and negligence claims for failing to submit a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under A.R.S. § 12-2602. Kestenbaum argues his claims are not subject to the…”
Cavness v. Ortega (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 29× “Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 12-2602. ¶6 Cavness argues that “dismissing a case because a litigant cannot afford to pay for a professional opinion under A.”
Catherine E. Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 17× “¶6 The trial court dismissed Wilson and Sierra Pest from the action prior to trial because Warner had not filed an expert opinion affidavit as required by A.R.S § 12-2602. The court granted Warner’s motion for summary judgment on Hoggatt’s negligence and SDI’s corresponding…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(0) — 1 case
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(A) — 14 cases
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(B) — 12 cases
Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 180 P.3d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The trial court dismissed Wilson and Sierra Pest from the action prior to trial because Warner had not filed an expert opinion affidavit as required by A.R.S § 12-2602. The court granted Warner’s motion for summary judgment on Hoggatt’s negligence and SDI’s corresponding…”
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court, 947 P.2d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“("Hunter"), the contractor in charge, and others for injuries that he attributed to Hunter's failure to maintain a *894 safe construction site. Hunter moved to dismiss Grandinetti's complaint on the ground that it lacked an accompanying expert affidavit as required by A.”
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(B)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(B)(4) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(C) — 3 cases
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Kestenbaum v. Ford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth Kestenbaum appeals the superior court’s judgment dismissing his veterinary malpractice and negligence claims for failing to submit a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under A.R.S. § 12-2602. Kestenbaum argues his claims are not subject to the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(D) — 7 cases
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court, 947 P.2d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“("Hunter"), the contractor in charge, and others for injuries that he attributed to Hunter's failure to maintain a *894 safe construction site. Hunter moved to dismiss Grandinetti's complaint on the ground that it lacked an accompanying expert affidavit as required by A.”
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
Kestenbaum v. Ford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth Kestenbaum appeals the superior court’s judgment dismissing his veterinary malpractice and negligence claims for failing to submit a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under A.R.S. § 12-2602. Kestenbaum argues his claims are not subject to the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(E) — 10 cases
Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 180 P.3d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The trial court dismissed Wilson and Sierra Pest from the action prior to trial because Warner had not filed an expert opinion affidavit as required by A.R.S § 12-2602. The court granted Warner’s motion for summary judgment on Hoggatt’s negligence and SDI’s corresponding…”
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court, 947 P.2d 892 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“("Hunter"), the contractor in charge, and others for injuries that he attributed to Hunter's failure to maintain a *894 safe construction site. Hunter moved to dismiss Grandinetti's complaint on the ground that it lacked an accompanying expert affidavit as required by A.”
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(F) — 11 cases
Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 180 P.3d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The trial court dismissed Wilson and Sierra Pest from the action prior to trial because Warner had not filed an expert opinion affidavit as required by A.R.S § 12-2602. The court granted Warner’s motion for summary judgment on Hoggatt’s negligence and SDI’s corresponding…”
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
Kestenbaum v. Ford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth Kestenbaum appeals the superior court’s judgment dismissing his veterinary malpractice and negligence claims for failing to submit a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under A.R.S. § 12-2602. Kestenbaum argues his claims are not subject to the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(G) — 2 cases
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 60 P.3d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“1 We hold that A.R.S. § 12-2602 does not violate either equal protection or separation of powers.”
Kestenbaum v. Ford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth Kestenbaum appeals the superior court’s judgment dismissing his veterinary malpractice and negligence claims for failing to submit a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under A.R.S. § 12-2602. Kestenbaum argues his claims are not subject to the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(b) — 2 cases
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(c) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2602(f)(sic) — 1 case
Kaufman v. Jesser, 884 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Ariz. 2012).
“2009), the Arizona Court of Appeals described A.R.S. § 12-2602 as a “similar statute” to its companion statutes, A.”
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.