Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-572 (2026)

Burden of proof for treatment in emergency departments or rendered by on-call providers

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. Unless the elements of proof contained in section 12-563 are established by clear and convincing evidence, a health professional as defined in section 32-3201 who provides or who is consulted to provide services to a patient of a licensed hospital in compliance with the emergency medical treatment and labor act (P.L. 99-272; 100 Stat. 164; 42 United States Code section 1395dd) or as a result of a disaster is not liable for any civil or other damages as a result of any act or omission.

B. Unless the elements of proof contained in section 12-563 are established by clear and convincing evidence regarding the acts or omissions of a licensed hospital or its agents and employees in cases that are covered by subsection A of this section, the hospital is not liable for any civil or other damages as a result of any act or omission.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Stafford v. Burns, 389 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stafford v. Burns, 389 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 25× “As set forth below, we hold, as relevant here, the heightened standard of proof for claims against a health professional set forth in AR.S. § 12-572(A) applies whenever the acts or omissions plaintiff contends were deficient were provided in the course of evaluating and treating…”

Henke v. Hosp. (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 38× “¶2 A separate statute, A.R.S. § 12-572, provides that health professionals and hospitals providing treatment in emergency departments are not liable for damages “[u]nless the elements of proof contained in § 12-563 are established by clear and convincing evidence.”

Stafford v. Burns (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 25× “As set forth below, we hold, as relevant here, the heightened standard of proof for claims against a health professional set forth in A.R.S. § 12-572(A) applies whenever the acts or omissions plaintiff contends were deficient were provided in the course of evaluating and…”

Henke v. Hosp. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “And, ultimately, that would be insufficient to meet the high standard of clear and convincing evidence required by A.R.S. § 12-572. Therefore, as a matter of law, [Mrs.”

Hinshaw v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “The parties do not dispute that, because Hinshaw’s claim relates to services provided in an emergency department, A.R.S. § 12-572(B) applies and Hinshaw must therefore establish the necessary elements of proof set out at A.”

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-572. Accordingly, we conclude that the Legislature would have enacted § 12-516(A) even if the invalid portion relating to wilful misconduct and gross negligence had been removed.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-572(A) — 4 cases

Stafford v. Burns, 389 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “As set forth below, we hold, as relevant here, the heightened standard of proof for claims against a health professional set forth in AR.S. § 12-572(A) applies whenever the acts or omissions plaintiff contends were deficient were provided in the course of evaluating and treating…”

Stafford v. Burns (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “As set forth below, we hold, as relevant here, the heightened standard of proof for claims against a health professional set forth in A.R.S. § 12-572(A) applies whenever the acts or omissions plaintiff contends were deficient were provided in the course of evaluating and…”

Henke v. Hosp. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “And, ultimately, that would be insufficient to meet the high standard of clear and convincing evidence required by A.R.S. § 12-572. Therefore, as a matter of law, [Mrs.”

Henke v. Hosp. (Ariz. 2025). “¶2 A separate statute, A.R.S. § 12-572, provides that health professionals and hospitals providing treatment in emergency departments are not liable for damages “[u]nless the elements of proof contained in § 12-563 are established by clear and convincing evidence.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-572(B) — 2 cases

Hinshaw v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (D. Ariz. 2017). “The parties do not dispute that, because Hinshaw’s claim relates to services provided in an emergency department, A.R.S. § 12-572(B) applies and Hinshaw must therefore establish the necessary elements of proof set out at A.”

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.