Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-562 (2026)

Medical malpractice actions; grounds

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

A. A medical malpractice action shall not be brought against a licensed health care provider except upon the grounds set forth in section 12-561.

B. A medical malpractice action brought against a licensed health care provider shall not be based upon assault and battery.

C. A medical malpractice action based upon breach of contract for professional services shall not be brought unless such contract is in writing.

D. A medical malpractice action brought against a physician licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17, a podiatrist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 7, a registered nurse practitioner licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 15 or a physician assistant licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 25 regarding services provided within that person's scope of practice shall not be based on the neglect, abuse or exploitation of a vulnerable adult, except as provided in section 46-455.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 30× “[24] The Arizona Supreme Court has held that subsection (B) of A.R.S. § 12-562 is unconstitutional to the extent it abrogates a plaintiff's action for battery, regardless of the fact the plaintiff could still bring an action under other theories of liability.”
Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 13× “It then argued that Duncan’s remaining battery claim must be classified as a medical malpractice action under A.R.S. § 12-562(B), and required presentation of expert testimony pursuant to A.”
Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 343 P.3d 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 12-562(B). Nevertheless, “claims involving lack of consent, i.”
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elec., Inc., 393 P.3d 919 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “The superior court rejected those arguments, ruled that § 12-652(A) applied to bar the City’s claims, granted the motion to dismiss, and certified its decision as final under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 64(b).”
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 111 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2× “3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona's Medical Malpractice Act, A.”
Gaston v. Hunter, 588 P.2d 326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-562 B purports to eliminate battery as a cause of action against a “licensed health care provider”.”
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 12-562(D). ¶ 21 Contrary to his argument, the allegations of Blackburn's complaint belie his assertion that he has alleged no claims of medical malpractice.”
Rubino v. De Fretias, 638 F. Supp. 182 (D. Ariz. 1986). · cites it 6× “§ 12-562 does not abrogate plaintiff’s right to recover for damages arising out of the underlying medical procedure but merely limits the theories upon which such action may be brought fails to recognize that in the context of informed consent, battery and negligence…”
Cathemer v. Hunter, 558 P.2d 975 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “165-166; A.R.S. § 12-562(B), (see Footnote 2, supra).”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-562(B). This directly conflicts with the APSA provisions defining abuse, inter alia, as intentionally inflicted harm and sexual abuse or assault.”
Hales v. Pittman, 576 P.2d 493 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-562(B) abrogated battery as a cause of action subsequent to the institution of this suit.”
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions, 209 P.3d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-562(A). They cannot be based upon assault and battery.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-562(A) — 4 cases
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “[24] The Arizona Supreme Court has held that subsection (B) of A.R.S. § 12-562 is unconstitutional to the extent it abrogates a plaintiff's action for battery, regardless of the fact the plaintiff could still bring an action under other theories of liability.”
Nunsuch Ex Rel. Nunsuch v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Ariz. 2001).
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions, 209 P.3d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “A.R.S. § 12-562(A). They cannot be based upon assault and battery.”
Dillon v. Pitt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-562(B) — 18 cases
Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003). “It then argued that Duncan’s remaining battery claim must be classified as a medical malpractice action under A.R.S. § 12-562(B), and required presentation of expert testimony pursuant to A.”
Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 343 P.3d 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “” AR.S. § 12-562(B). Nevertheless, “claims involving lack of consent, i.”
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 111 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. 2005). “3d 435, 437 (2003) (holding that Article 18, Section 6 invalidated section 12-562(B) of Arizona's Medical Malpractice Act, A.”
Cathemer v. Hunter, 558 P.2d 975 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “165-166; A.R.S. § 12-562(B), (see Footnote 2, supra).”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002). “” A.R.S. § 12-562(B). This directly conflicts with the APSA provisions defining abuse, inter alia, as intentionally inflicted harm and sexual abuse or assault.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-562(C) — 2 cases
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “[24] The Arizona Supreme Court has held that subsection (B) of A.R.S. § 12-562 is unconstitutional to the extent it abrogates a plaintiff's action for battery, regardless of the fact the plaintiff could still bring an action under other theories of liability.”
Stephan v. Bertz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-562(D) — 1 case
Cornerstone Hosp. of Se. Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn, 290 P.3d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “A.R.S. § 12-562(D). ¶ 21 Contrary to his argument, the allegations of Blackburn's complaint belie his assertion that he has alleged no claims of medical malpractice.”
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.