Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564 (2026)

Qualified immunity; students; duty of care

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-564. Qualified immunity; students; duty of care

A. A student who is in an educational or training program of a certified, accredited or state approved postsecondary institution that prepares students for licensing as a health care provider is not liable in a medical malpractice action for injury that occurs during or as a result of care that is provided while the student is in the program and under the supervision of a licensed health care provider unless gross negligence is established by clear and convincing evidence.

B. A student who is in an educational or training program of a certified, accredited or state approved postsecondary institution that prepares students for licensing as a health care provider does not owe an independent duty of care to a patient if the student is participating in patient care under the supervision of a licensed health care provider.

C. This section does not eliminate any responsibility of the supervising licensed health care provider for the student's actions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 108× “Defendant claims that whatever the meaning of "date of the injury," the complaint, filed seven years after the negligent act, was untimely if the malpractice statute is applied. The court of appeals held that the action was governed by the wrongful death statute (A.”

Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 692 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 20× “Subsection D of § 12-564 states: Notwithstanding the provisions of § 12-502, in an action on behalf of a minor injured under the age of seven, the applicable period of limitations [three years] begins to run when the minor reaches his or her seventh birthday, or on death,…”

DeBoer v. Brown, 673 P.2d 912 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 11× “In September, 1981, Dotson filed a medical malpractice action against DeBoer based on DeBoer’s misdiagnosis. DeBoer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations provided by A.”

Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped, 721 P.2d 1177 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “The court held that A.R.S. § 12-564, which shortened the statute of limitations for minors injured by medical malpractice, was unconstitutional because it deprived the minor of his cause of action while he was under a disability and powerless to act on his own behalf.”

Anson v. Am. Motors Corp., 747 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Further, the statute in question (A.R.S. § 12-564, since repealed by the legislature in 1985) violated equal protection and was unconstitutional under Article II, § 13 of the Arizona Constitution insofar as it purported to abolish or limit the discovery rule in medical…”

Walk v. Ring, 44 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “The history of the present statute supports that conclusion. 3. Legislative considerations ¶27 The legislature, we believe, is quite familiar with the distinction between the date of injury and the date of accrual of a cause of action.”

Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines, 43 P.3d 196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “The statute found unconstitutional in Barrio , former A.R.S. § 12-564(D), provided: "Notwithstanding the provisions of § 12-502, in an action on behalf of a minor injured under the age of seven, the applicable period of limitations [three years] begins to run when the minor…”

Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 17× “That the action has been brought more than one year (1) year after the effective date of ARS 12-564. 4. That the defendant is a licensed health-care provider.”

James v. Phoenix Gen. Hosp., Inc., 744 P.2d 689 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 60× “In resolving this issue, we note that A.R.S. § 12-564 states that it applies to actions for “injury” and nowhere does that statute mention wrongful death claims.”

DeBoer v. Brown, 673 P.2d 922 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 13× “DeBoer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations pertaining to medical malpractice actions, A.R.S. § 12-564, which provides: “§ 12-564.”

Boone v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 700 P.2d 1335 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-564(A). The statute would have expired on July 23, 1983.”

Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C., 88 P.3d 557 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “2d at 964 (quoting A.R.S. § 12-564(A)). The supreme court interpreted the statute to apply at the time injury occurs, regardless of whether the injury is discovered, thus, abolishing the discovery rule.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564(2) — 1 case

Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564(A) — 13 cases

Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984). “Defendant claims that whatever the meaning of "date of the injury," the complaint, filed seven years after the negligent act, was untimely if the malpractice statute is applied. The court of appeals held that the action was governed by the wrongful death statute (A.”

Walk v. Ring, 44 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2002). “The history of the present statute supports that conclusion. 3. Legislative considerations ¶27 The legislature, we believe, is quite familiar with the distinction between the date of injury and the date of accrual of a cause of action.”

Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped, 721 P.2d 1177 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “The court held that A.R.S. § 12-564, which shortened the statute of limitations for minors injured by medical malpractice, was unconstitutional because it deprived the minor of his cause of action while he was under a disability and powerless to act on his own behalf.”

James v. Phoenix Gen. Hosp., Inc., 744 P.2d 689 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “In resolving this issue, we note that A.R.S. § 12-564 states that it applies to actions for “injury” and nowhere does that statute mention wrongful death claims.”

Boone v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 700 P.2d 1335 (Ariz. 1985). “A.R.S. § 12-564(A). The statute would have expired on July 23, 1983.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564(B) — 2 cases

Johnson v. Univ. Hosp., 712 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564(C) — 2 cases

Patricia Langager & Leroy Langager, Husband & Wife v. Lake Havasu Cmty. Hosp., 688 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1982).

Trede v. Fam. Dental Ctr., 708 P.2d 116 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564(D) — 3 cases

Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 692 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1984). “Subsection D of § 12-564 states: Notwithstanding the provisions of § 12-502, in an action on behalf of a minor injured under the age of seven, the applicable period of limitations [three years] begins to run when the minor reaches his or her seventh birthday, or on death,…”

Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines, 43 P.3d 196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “The statute found unconstitutional in Barrio , former A.R.S. § 12-564(D), provided: "Notwithstanding the provisions of § 12-502, in an action on behalf of a minor injured under the age of seven, the applicable period of limitations [three years] begins to run when the minor…”

Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 692 P.2d 290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-564(d) — 1 case

Theriault v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 698 P.2d 365 (Idaho 1985).

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.