During the trial of a medical malpractice action against a licensed health care provider or during the course of any hearing or review conducted pursuant to section 12-567, evidence that any party or that any witness testifying in such trial, hearing, or review proceeding has been or is covered by a professional liability insurance policy issued by a health care insurer established pursuant to title 20, chapter 7, article 2 or that such party or witness has a financial interest in the operation of such a health care insurer arising as a result of the ownership of stock, a policy or policies of insurance, notes, including contributed surplus notes, any other evidence of indebtedness, or otherwise, shall not be received in evidence for any purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1977–2009 · leading case:
Barsema v. Susong, 751 P.2d 969 (Ariz. 1988).
Barsema v. Susong, 751 P.2d 969 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 22× “We granted review to determine whether A.R.S. § 12-569 can be constitutionally applied to limit the cross-examination of an expert witness on issues pertaining to possible bias and prejudice.”
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 8× “There, the statute at issue, A.R.S. § 12-569, prohibited "for any purpose" the admission of evidence that a witness has been or is covered by a certain type of medical malpractice insurer or has a financial interest in the operation of such an insurer.”
Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 3× “§ 12-565(A), in conjunction with the non-admissibility of the health care provider’s liability insurance coverage, A.R.S. § 12-569, arbitrarily precludes the petitioners from recovering certain expenses that all other tort claimants are entitled to and denies them fundamental…”
Barsema v. Susong, 751 P.2d 964 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 25× “Crisp’s agency, bias and prejudice by cross-examining him about his employment relationship with Mutual Insurance Company of America (MICA), defendants’ insurer, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-569; (2) the trial court erred in precluding plaintiffs from calling Dr.”
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.