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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-563 (2026)

Necessary elements of proof

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Both of the following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care:

1. The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning expected of a reasonable, prudent health care provider in the profession or class to which he belongs within the state acting in the same or similar circumstances.

2. Such failure was a proximate cause of the injury.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 14× “The common law requirement thus effectively established an element of the cause of action, by specifying the kind of proof necessary to meet the plaintiff's burden of production.”
Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 12-562(B), and required presentation of expert testimony pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-563. The trial court agreed, ruling that Duncan’s claim was for medical malpractice and that the governing statutes were constitutional as a “regulation” of common law battery.”
St. George v. Plimpton, 384 P.3d 1243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-563; Kreisman v. Thomas, 12 Ariz.”
McGuire v. DeFrancesco, 811 P.2d 340 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 13× “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-563 (1976). May a plaintiff prove that a board-certified medical specialist violated this statewide standard by expert testimony that the physician’s care fell below minimum standards required of his specialty in every state including Arizona? And may a…”
Nunsuch ex rel. Nunsuch v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Ariz. 2001). · cites it 8× “A plaintiffs burden of proof in a medical malpractice action is prescribed by A.R.S. § 12-563, which provides: Both of the following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care: 1.”
Gurr v. Willcutt, 707 P.2d 979 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 12-563. These same elements must be proven to withstand summary judgment.”
Robert Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare, 296 P.3d 42 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 12-563. The standard of care, however, necessarily depends on the particular care or treatment at issue.”
Rice v. Brakel, 310 P.3d 16 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “3d 483, 492 (2009); see also A.R.S. § 12-563. Plaintiffs alleging lack of informed consent must show two types of causation: (1) the plaintiff would have declined the treatment with adequate disclosure; and (2) the treatment proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.”
Stanley v. McCarver, 92 P.3d 849 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 2× “[5] This standard is supported by Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-563(1) (2003), which provides that, to establish a claim of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that [t]he health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning expected of a…”
Kowske v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 863 P.2d 254 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “§ 12-542 to non-obvious medical malpractice actions denies such claimants equal protection under Article 2, § 13, of the Arizona Constitution *538 because, as plaintiffs assert on page 15 of their opening brief, “[claimants in non-obvious cases must obtain expert testimony to…”
Gaston v. Hunter, 588 P.2d 326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-563. The new law, however, would not apply to pending actions.”
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co., 262 P.3d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 12-563 (2003); Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-563(1): 16 cases
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009). “The common law requirement thus effectively established an element of the cause of action, by specifying the kind of proof necessary to meet the plaintiff's burden of production.”
Stanley v. McCarver, 92 P.3d 849 (Ariz. 2004). “[5] This standard is supported by Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-563(1) (2003), which provides that, to establish a claim of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that [t]he health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning expected of a…”
Smethers v. Campion, 108 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Robert Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare, 296 P.3d 42 (Ariz. 2013). “§ 12-563. The standard of care, however, necessarily depends on the particular care or treatment at issue.”
Cox v. MA Primary & Urgent Care Clinic, 313 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-563(2): 10 cases
Nunsuch ex rel. Nunsuch v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Ariz. 2001). “A plaintiffs burden of proof in a medical malpractice action is prescribed by A.R.S. § 12-563, which provides: Both of the following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care: 1.”
Henke v. Hosp., No. CV-24-0259-PR (Ariz. Oct. 22, 2025).
Monje v. Corey Md, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0513 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2018).
Hinshaw v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Phillips v. Schwartz, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0487 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 27, 2023).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-563(A): 1 case
Kowske v. Life Care Centers of Am., Inc., 863 P.2d 254 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 12-542 to non-obvious medical malpractice actions denies such claimants equal protection under Article 2, § 13, of the Arizona Constitution *538 because, as plaintiffs assert on page 15 of their opening brief, “[claimants in non-obvious cases must obtain expert testimony to…”
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.