Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2605 (2026)

Evidence of admissions; civil proceedings; unanticipated outcomes; medical care

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-2605. Evidence of admissions; civil proceedings; unanticipated outcomes; medical care

In any civil action that is brought against a health care provider as defined in section 12-561 or in any arbitration proceeding that relates to the civil action, any statement, affirmation, gesture or conduct expressing apology, responsibility, liability, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion or a general sense of benevolence that was made by a health care provider or an employee of a health care provider to the patient, a relative of the patient, the patient's survivors or a health care decision maker for the patient and that relates to the discomfort, pain, suffering, injury or death of the patient as the result of the unanticipated outcome of medical care is inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission against interest.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2021 · leading case: Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger, 394 P.3d 1083 (Ariz. 2017).
Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger, 394 P.3d 1083 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “3d 228 (noting that “[wjhether the plaintiffs conduct constituted an intervening (or even a superseding) cause of the harm suffered is a question of fact and does not determine whether a duty exists”); see also A.R.S. § 12-2605(A) (providing that defenses of contributory…”
Coleman v. Amon, 498 P.3d 638 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 37× “1 The Colemans challenge (1) the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 12-2605, which generally bars a healthcare provider’s apologetic statements as evidence of liability or an admission against interest in a civil action; and (2) several evidentiary rulings.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2605(A): 1 case
Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger, 394 P.3d 1083 (Ariz. 2017). “3d 228 (noting that “[wjhether the plaintiffs conduct constituted an intervening (or even a superseding) cause of the harm suffered is a question of fact and does not determine whether a duty exists”); see also A.R.S. § 12-2605(A) (providing that defenses of contributory…”
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.