A. In any medical malpractice action against a licensed health care provider, the defendant may introduce evidence of any amount or other benefit which is or will be payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the injury or death pursuant to the United States social security act, any state or federal workers' compensation act, any disability, health, sickness, life, income-disability or accident insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability coverage and any other contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the cost of income-disability or medical, hospital, dental or other health care services to establish that any cost, expense, or loss claimed by the plaintiff as a result of the injury or death is subject to reimbursement or indemnification from such collateral sources. Where the defendant elects to introduce such evidence, the plaintiff may introduce evidence of any amount which the plaintiff has paid or contributed to secure his right to any such benefits or that recovery from the defendant is subject to a lien or that a provider of such collateral benefits has a statutory right of recovery against the plaintiff as reimbursement for such benefits or that the provider of such benefits has a right of subrogation to the rights of the plaintiff in the medical malpractice action.
B. Evidence introduced pursuant to this section shall be admissible for the purpose of considering the damages claimed by the plaintiff and shall be accorded such weight as the trier of the facts chooses to give it.
C. Unless otherwise expressly permitted to do so by statute, no provider of collateral benefits, as described in subsection A, shall recover any amount against the plaintiff as reimbursement for such benefits nor shall such provider be subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case:
Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1977).
Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 7× “” We do not agree' that A.R.S. § 12-565 limits the amount of damages recoverable.”
Allen v. Fisher, 574 P.2d 1314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “In any medical malpractice action against a licensed health care provider, the defendant may introduce evidence of any amount or other benefit which is or will be payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the injury or death pursuant to the United States Social…”
Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 129 P.3d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Dobbs, The Law of Torts, § 380, at 1059 (2001) (“Considering the matter prospectively rather than after the fact, it may well be that compensation could be more cheaply secured without the collateral source rule.”
Rudolph v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 293 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 2× “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-565 (Supp.1979). But the Iowa statute sub judice provides that "the damages awarded shall not include actual economic losses incurred.”
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight Sys., Inc., 717 P.2d 434 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The Court found that the collateral source rule, abolished by A.R.S. § 12-565, was substantive and could not be retroactively abrogated with respect to pending lawsuits.”
Denton v. Con-Way S. Express, Inc., 402 S.E.2d 269 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 2× “, Arizona, A.R.S. § 12-565 (allows only evidence of payments or benefits which result from the plaintiff's injury); California, Civil Code § 3333.”
Roy L. Siverson v. United States, 710 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “” The government argues that: (1) Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 12-565 requires a reduction in damages by virtue of a collateral source payment, and in effect abolishes the collateral source doctrine in Arizona; (2) Medicare payments are not a “collateral source” because both Medicare…”
Musa v. C. K. Adrian, M.D., 636 P.2d 104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Evidence may be introduced at trial regarding the collateral benefits received by the plaintiffs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-565. c. That the appropriate standard of care, in this action, is the standard of care outlined in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-565(A) — 1 case
Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1977).
“” We do not agree' that A.R.S. § 12-565 limits the amount of damages recoverable.”
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.