A. The following acts are class 5 felonies:
1. The practice of medicine by a person not licensed or exempt from licensure pursuant to this chapter.
2. Securing a license to practice medicine pursuant to this chapter by fraud or deceit.
3. Impersonating a member of the board in issuing a license to practice medicine to another.
B. The following acts if committed by a person not licensed under this chapter or exempt from licensure pursuant to section 32-1421 are class 2 misdemeanors:
1. The use of the designation "M.D." in a way that would lead the public to believe that a person was licensed to practice medicine in this state.
2. The use of the designation "doctor of medicine", "physician", "surgeon", "physician and surgeon" or any combination thereof unless such designation additionally contains the description of another branch of the healing arts.
3. The use of the designation "doctor" by a member of another branch of healing arts unless there is set forth with each such designation the other branch of the healing arts concerned.
4. The use of any other words, initials, symbols or combination thereof which would lead the public to believe such person is licensed to practice medicine in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2021 · leading case:
Catrone v. Miles, 160 P.3d 1204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Catrone v. Miles, 160 P.3d 1204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 32-1455(A)(1) (2002) (medical doctors); 32-2021(A) (Supp.”
Midtown Med. Grp., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 206 P.3d 790 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 32-1455(A)(1) (2008) (making it a class 5 felony to practice medicine when “a person [is] not licensed or exempt from licensure pursuant to this chapter’”).”
State v. Horn, 422 P.2d 172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 3× “§ 32-1401 and A.R.S. § 32-1455, as amended. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and order denying a new trial.”
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state, 486 P.3d 204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, while the State may not have conveyed Trinh’s background to the grand jury with the detail or nuance Trinh wanted, the State made clear 1 Although Trinh requested the jury be informed of A.R.S. § 32-1455(B)(1) and why he could not be charged with misusing the title “M.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1455(A)(1) — 4 cases
Catrone v. Miles, 160 P.3d 1204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“A.R.S. §§ 32-1455(A)(1) (2002) (medical doctors); 32-2021(A) (Supp.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1455(B)(1) — 1 case
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state, 486 P.3d 204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“Similarly, while the State may not have conveyed Trinh’s background to the grand jury with the detail or nuance Trinh wanted, the State made clear 1 Although Trinh requested the jury be informed of A.R.S. § 32-1455(B)(1) and why he could not be charged with misusing the title “M.”
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.