In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Licensed health care provider" means both:
(a) A person, corporation or institution licensed or certified by the state to provide health care, medical services, nursing services or other health-related services and includes the officers, employees and agents thereof working under the supervision of such person, corporation or institution in providing such health care, medical services, nursing services or other health-related services.
(b) A federally licensed, regulated or registered blood bank, blood center or plasma center collecting, processing or distributing whole human blood, blood components, plasma, blood fractions or blood derivatives for use by a licensed health care provider and includes the officers, employees and agents working under the supervision of the blood bank, blood center or plasma center.
2. "Medical malpractice action" or "cause of action for medical malpractice" means an action for injury or death against a licensed health care provider based upon such provider's alleged negligence, misconduct, errors or omissions, or breach of contract in the rendering of health care, medical services, nursing services or other health-related services or for the rendering of such health care, medical services, nursing services or other health-related services, without express or implied consent including an action based upon the alleged negligence, misconduct, errors or omissions or breach of contract in collecting, processing or distributing whole human blood, blood components, plasma, blood fractions or blood derivatives.
Notes of Decisions
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 28× “The court further rejected the Jeters' breach of fiduciary duty and breach of bailment contract claims as barred by Arizona's Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003 & Supp.2004).”
Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 20× “" The first statute in the chapter, A.R.S. § 12-561, contains definitions applicable to the entire chapter and provides that a "`cause of action for medical malpractice' means an action for injury or death against a licensed health care provider.”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Examining the interplay between APSA and the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), A.R.S. § 12-561 et seq., we conclude that under some circumstances such an action may be maintained.”
Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 4× “”) §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003), violates Aticle 18, Section 6 of the Aizona Constitution as an abrogation of a patient’s right of action in common law battery to recover damages for injuries.”
Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 4× “The petitioners contend that provisions of the Arizona Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. § 12-561, et seq., abolishing the collateral source rule, is unconstitutional in that it (a) is a special law, (b) is a limitation on damages, and (c) denies equal protection of the laws.”
Musa v. C. K. Adrian, M. D., 636 P.2d 89 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 5× “The Arizona Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. § 12-561, et seq. (Laws of 1976, 1st S.”
Campbell v. Arnold, 590 P.2d 909 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 8× “§ 12-567, bypass the Superior Court and seek direct relief in the Court of Appeals? The petitioner, a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Arizona, is a "licensed health care provider" as defined by A.R.S. § 12-561. The real parties in interest filed a…”
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “¶ 8 Most importantly, the issues presented in this case involve legal questions that are of first impression and statewide importance regarding the interpretation and application of § 12-2604; the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), A.R.S. §§ 12-561 through 12-594; and APSA.”
Gurr v. Willcutt, 707 P.2d 979 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “2 WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIVESTED OF “JURISDICTION” We place the word “jurisdiction” in quotation marks here because it is the word used by the plaintiff.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-561(1) — 4 cases
Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984).
“" The first statute in the chapter, A.R.S. § 12-561, contains definitions applicable to the entire chapter and provides that a "`cause of action for medical malpractice' means an action for injury or death against a licensed health care provider.”
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“The court further rejected the Jeters' breach of fiduciary duty and breach of bailment contract claims as barred by Arizona's Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003 & Supp.2004).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-561(1)(a) — 2 cases
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002).
“Examining the interplay between APSA and the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), A.R.S. § 12-561 et seq., we conclude that under some circumstances such an action may be maintained.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-561(2) — 33 cases
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“The court further rejected the Jeters' breach of fiduciary duty and breach of bailment contract claims as barred by Arizona's Medical Malpractice Act, A.R.S. §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003 & Supp.2004).”
Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984).
“" The first statute in the chapter, A.R.S. § 12-561, contains definitions applicable to the entire chapter and provides that a "`cause of action for medical malpractice' means an action for injury or death against a licensed health care provider.”
Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003).
“”) §§ 12-561 to -594 (2003), violates Aticle 18, Section 6 of the Aizona Constitution as an abrogation of a patient’s right of action in common law battery to recover damages for injuries.”
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“¶ 8 Most importantly, the issues presented in this case involve legal questions that are of first impression and statewide importance regarding the interpretation and application of § 12-2604; the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), A.R.S. §§ 12-561 through 12-594; and APSA.”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002).
“Examining the interplay between APSA and the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), A.R.S. § 12-561 et seq., we conclude that under some circumstances such an action may be maintained.”
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.