12-2603. Preliminary expert opinion testimony against health care professionals; certification; definitions
A. If a claim against a health care professional is asserted in a civil action, the claimant or the party designating a nonparty at fault or its attorney shall certify in a written statement that is filed and served with the claim or the designation of nonparty at fault whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional's standard of care or liability for the claim.
B. If the claimant or the party designating a nonparty at fault or its attorney certifies pursuant to subsection H of this section 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. If a party designates a nonparty at fault and certifies pursuant to subsection H of this section that expert opinion testimony is necessary, that party shall serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit within sixty days after filing the designation. The claimant or the party designating a nonparty at fault may provide affidavits from as many experts as the claimant or the party designating a nonparty at fault 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 health care professional's standard of care or liability for the claim.
2. The factual basis for each claim against a health care professional.
3. The health care 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 health care 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 health care professional against whom the claim is asserted or the designated nonparty at fault.
D. If the claimant or the party designating the nonparty at fault or its attorney certifies that expert testimony is not required for the claim or designation and the claimant, the health care professional or designated nonparty at fault disputes that certification in good faith, the claimant, the health care professional or the designated nonparty at fault may apply by motion to the court for an order requiring the claimant or the party designating the nonparty at fault to obtain and serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under this section. In the motion, the claimant, the health care professional or the designated nonparty at fault 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 or party designating the nonparty at fault 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 health care professional or designated nonparty at fault, shall dismiss the claim against the health care professional or designated nonparty at fault without prejudice if the claimant or the party designating the nonparty at fault fails to file and serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit after the claimant or designated nonparty at fault or its attorney has certified that an affidavit is necessary or the court has ordered the claimant or the party designating a nonparty at fault to file and serve an affidavit. Upon any allegation of insufficiency of the affidavit, the court shall allow any party a reasonable time to cure any affidavit, if necessary.
G. A claimant or a party designating a nonparty at fault 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. A preliminary expert opinion affidavit may be used for impeachment only upon a finding of the court that the facts upon which the affidavit were based have not substantially changed and that the facts were known to the expert at the time the affidavit was prepared.
H. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Claim" means a legal cause of action against a health care professional under sections 12-561 through 12-563 or under title 46, chapter 4 or an affirmative defense or designation of a nonparty at fault to which all of the following apply:
(a) The claim is asserted against a health care professional in a complaint, answer, cross-claim, counterclaim, third party complaint or designation of a nonparty at fault.
(b) The claim is based on the health care professional's alleged breach of contract, negligence, misconduct, errors or omissions in rendering professional services.
(c) Expert testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional's standard of care or liability for the claim.
2. "Expert" means a person who is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education to express an opinion regarding a licensed health care professional’s standard of care or liability for the claim.
Notes of Decisions
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 39× “They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
Gorney v. Meaney, 150 P.3d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 29× “(“Meaney”) after finding Gorney had not complied with the expert witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2603. On appeal, Gorney argues the court misinterpreted the requirements of § 12-2603 and improperly granted summary judgment.”
Boswell v. Fintelmann, 392 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 19× “The superior court granted appellees’ motion and ordered Boswell to serve his initial disclosure statement within twenty days and his preliminary expert opinion affidavit within thirty days. ¶ 4 Boswell did not comply with the court order, and appellees moved for dismissal.”
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 234 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 20× “Simon’s Non-Compliance with A.R.S. § 12-2603 Does Not Justify Dismissal ¶ 36 MMC argues that the superior court’s dismissal of it was justified because Simon failed to certify whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to establish standard of care or liability as required by…”
Romero v. Hasan, 388 P.3d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 30× “¶3 In December 2014, Romero certified pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 that expert testimony was not necessary to prove the proper standard of care or breach.”
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co., 262 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 14× “See AR.S. § 12-2603 (Supp.2010) (requiring the party designating a nonparty at fault to file a preliminary expert opinion affidavit if expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or liability for the claim); Gorney v.”
Passmore v. McCarver, 395 P.3d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 19× “OPINION SWANN, Judge: ¶ 1 The superior court dismissed appellants’ medical malpractice action without prejudice for failure to serve preliminary expert affidavits under A.R.S. § 12-2603. Appellants then sought to refile the action under Arizona’s “savings statute,” A.”
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 11× “s health care professionals involved in Billie Jo’s care “constitute a breach of [their] duties and are a deviation from the applicable standard of care in reckless disregard of’ her needs, “constituting abuse and neglect of a vulnerable adult as defined by statute, giving rise…”
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC, 380 P.3d 659 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Hasan, 1 CA-CV 15-0508, appellant appeals an order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with A.R.S. § 12-2603, requiring a “preliminary expert opinion affidavit” in a medical malpractice case, where appellate jurisdiction may exist under AR.”
St. George v. Plimpton, 384 P.3d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “”) section 12-2603(A) (requiring a claimant in a medical malpractice action to certify, at the time her claim is filed and served, “whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or liability for *165 the claim.”
JILLY v. Rayes, 209 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “In June 2008, the defendant doctors filed a motion to enforce, requesting the trial court to require the plaintiffs to comply with A.R.S. § 12-2603 by certifying whether expert testimony was necessary to prove the standard of care or liability issues in the case.”
Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Inst., P.C., 202 P.3d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “The trial court based its ruling on the Sanchezes’ failure to comply with the statute governing preliminary expert opinion affidavits in medical malpractice cases, A.R.S. § 12-2603. Contending the statute’s requirements cannot be harmonized with the res ipsa loquitur doctrine,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(A) — 34 cases
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 234 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Simon’s Non-Compliance with A.R.S. § 12-2603 Does Not Justify Dismissal ¶ 36 MMC argues that the superior court’s dismissal of it was justified because Simon failed to certify whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to establish standard of care or liability as required by…”
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
Passmore v. McCarver, 395 P.3d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“OPINION SWANN, Judge: ¶ 1 The superior court dismissed appellants’ medical malpractice action without prejudice for failure to serve preliminary expert affidavits under A.R.S. § 12-2603. Appellants then sought to refile the action under Arizona’s “savings statute,” A.”
Gorney v. Meaney, 150 P.3d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“(“Meaney”) after finding Gorney had not complied with the expert witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2603. On appeal, Gorney argues the court misinterpreted the requirements of § 12-2603 and improperly granted summary judgment.”
Romero v. Hasan, 388 P.3d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶3 In December 2014, Romero certified pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 that expert testimony was not necessary to prove the proper standard of care or breach.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(B) — 32 cases
Boswell v. Fintelmann, 392 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“The superior court granted appellees’ motion and ordered Boswell to serve his initial disclosure statement within twenty days and his preliminary expert opinion affidavit within thirty days. ¶ 4 Boswell did not comply with the court order, and appellees moved for dismissal.”
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
Gorney v. Meaney, 150 P.3d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“(“Meaney”) after finding Gorney had not complied with the expert witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2603. On appeal, Gorney argues the court misinterpreted the requirements of § 12-2603 and improperly granted summary judgment.”
St. George v. Plimpton, 384 P.3d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“”) section 12-2603(A) (requiring a claimant in a medical malpractice action to certify, at the time her claim is filed and served, “whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or liability for *165 the claim.”
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co., 262 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“See AR.S. § 12-2603 (Supp.2010) (requiring the party designating a nonparty at fault to file a preliminary expert opinion affidavit if expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or liability for the claim); Gorney v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(B)(1) — 11 cases
St. George v. Plimpton, 384 P.3d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“”) section 12-2603(A) (requiring a claimant in a medical malpractice action to certify, at the time her claim is filed and served, “whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or liability for *165 the claim.”
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“s health care professionals involved in Billie Jo’s care “constitute a breach of [their] duties and are a deviation from the applicable standard of care in reckless disregard of’ her needs, “constituting abuse and neglect of a vulnerable adult as defined by statute, giving rise…”
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(B)(2) — 2 cases
Gorney v. Meaney, 150 P.3d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“(“Meaney”) after finding Gorney had not complied with the expert witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2603. On appeal, Gorney argues the court misinterpreted the requirements of § 12-2603 and improperly granted summary judgment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(B)(4) — 3 cases
Gorney v. Meaney, 150 P.3d 799 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“(“Meaney”) after finding Gorney had not complied with the expert witness requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2603. On appeal, Gorney argues the court misinterpreted the requirements of § 12-2603 and improperly granted summary judgment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(B)(l) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(C) — 4 cases
JILLY v. Rayes, 209 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“In June 2008, the defendant doctors filed a motion to enforce, requesting the trial court to require the plaintiffs to comply with A.R.S. § 12-2603 by certifying whether expert testimony was necessary to prove the standard of care or liability issues in the case.”
Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Inst., P.C., 202 P.3d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The trial court based its ruling on the Sanchezes’ failure to comply with the statute governing preliminary expert opinion affidavits in medical malpractice cases, A.R.S. § 12-2603. Contending the statute’s requirements cannot be harmonized with the res ipsa loquitur doctrine,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(D) — 12 cases
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 234 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Simon’s Non-Compliance with A.R.S. § 12-2603 Does Not Justify Dismissal ¶ 36 MMC argues that the superior court’s dismissal of it was justified because Simon failed to certify whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to establish standard of care or liability as required by…”
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
Romero v. Hasan, 388 P.3d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶3 In December 2014, Romero certified pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 that expert testimony was not necessary to prove the proper standard of care or breach.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(E) — 7 cases
Romero v. Hasan, 388 P.3d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶3 In December 2014, Romero certified pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 that expert testimony was not necessary to prove the proper standard of care or breach.”
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(F) — 27 cases
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 234 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Simon’s Non-Compliance with A.R.S. § 12-2603 Does Not Justify Dismissal ¶ 36 MMC argues that the superior court’s dismissal of it was justified because Simon failed to certify whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to establish standard of care or liability as required by…”
Passmore v. McCarver, 395 P.3d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“OPINION SWANN, Judge: ¶ 1 The superior court dismissed appellants’ medical malpractice action without prejudice for failure to serve preliminary expert affidavits under A.R.S. § 12-2603. Appellants then sought to refile the action under Arizona’s “savings statute,” A.”
Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 183 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“They argue that, because their claim is based on res ipsa loquitur, the relevant statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604, do not require them to engage an expert in the specialty of each physician they allege may have been negligent.”
Romero v. Hasan, 388 P.3d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶3 In December 2014, Romero certified pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603 that expert testimony was not necessary to prove the proper standard of care or breach.”
Boswell v. Fintelmann, 392 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“The superior court granted appellees’ motion and ordered Boswell to serve his initial disclosure statement within twenty days and his preliminary expert opinion affidavit within thirty days. ¶ 4 Boswell did not comply with the court order, and appellees moved for dismissal.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(G) — 1 case
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co., 262 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“See AR.S. § 12-2603 (Supp.2010) (requiring the party designating a nonparty at fault to file a preliminary expert opinion affidavit if expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or liability for the claim); Gorney v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(H) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(H)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(H)(1)(c) — 1 case
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“s health care professionals involved in Billie Jo’s care “constitute a breach of [their] duties and are a deviation from the applicable standard of care in reckless disregard of’ her needs, “constituting abuse and neglect of a vulnerable adult as defined by statute, giving rise…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(H)(2) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2603(H)(l)(b) — 1 case
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 234 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Simon’s Non-Compliance with A.R.S. § 12-2603 Does Not Justify Dismissal ¶ 36 MMC argues that the superior court’s dismissal of it was justified because Simon failed to certify whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to establish standard of care or liability as required by…”
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.