A. A release of claims on which a lien or assignment is given by section 33-931 or of any judgment on that claim is not valid or effectual against the lien or assignment unless the lienholder or assignee joins in the release or executes a release of the lien or assignment. If any amount has been or is to be collected by the injured person or that person's legal representative from or on account of the person, firm or corporation liable for damages by reason of a judgment, settlement or compromise, the claimant or assignee of the lien or assignment may enforce the lien or assignment by action against the person, firm or corporation that is liable for damages, or against any insurer or other person, firm or corporation that is responsible for paying all or part of the damages.
B. An action pursuant to this section shall be commenced and tried in the county in which the lien or assignment is filed, unless ordered by the court to be removed to another county for cause. The court may allow reasonable attorney fees and disbursements to the prevailing party. The action shall be commenced within two years after the entry of the judgment or the making of the settlement or compromise. In an action to enforce a lien or assignment, the lienholder or assignee may not recover more than the amount of the lien or assignment nor may it recover more against a defendant in the lien action than that defendant is obligated to pay under judgment or settlement. The defendant in the lien or assignment action cannot raise as a defense in that action that it is not liable for the amount it is obligated to pay under the judgment or settlement except that it may dispute the amount of the lien on the grounds that the charges giving rise to the lien are erroneous or exceed the customary charges, or that the care, treatment or transportation giving rise to the charges was not medically necessary or causally related to the event giving rise to the claim to which the lien or assignment extends.
C. This section does not create any rights or causes of action on behalf of the lienholder other than are provided for in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case:
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich, 71 P.3d 910 (Ariz. 2003).
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich, 71 P.3d 910 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 25× “We today hold that A.R.S. § 33-934 (2000) allows an action to enforce a health care provider lien only against those liable to an injured person, not against the injured person.”
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 377 P.3d 988 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 6× “¶3 In January 2014, Premier sued the Navarros under A.R.S. § 33-934 to enforce the lien. The Navarros moved to dismiss the action because the lien was recorded more than thirty days after Premier first provided services to Gipson.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Barfield, 75 P.3d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 22× “§ 12-962, but that Maricopa County could not enforce its hen against the remaining defendants because A.R.S. § 33-934 (2000) provides that such liens may be enforced against “the person, firm or corporation hable for damages.”
Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 129 P.3d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“3d 910, 911, 915 (2003) (holding that § 33-934 "allows an action to enforce a health care provider lien only against those liable to an injured person, not against the injured person," but also stating "[t]he provider can always proceed, even in the absence of a lien, against…”
McReynolds v. Am. Com. Ins., 235 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “”); A.R.S. § 33-934(A) (2007) (holding that the lienholder must sign to authorize the release of any lien under A.”
Andrews v. Samaritan Health Sys., 36 P.3d 57 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“Section 33-934 authorizes attorneys’ fees only for hen claimants who successfully enforce medical hens; A.”
Abbott v. Banner Health Network, 341 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The Legislature amended A.R.S. § 33-934(A) in 2004 to permit providers to enforce liens against insurers who paid amounts to patients without settling the lien.”
Dignity Health v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 444 P.3d 743 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “3 ¶19 Dignity requests an award of attorneys' fees incurred both on appeal and in the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-934. In the exercise of the court's discretion, Dignity is awarded an amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred on appeal, as well as its taxable…”
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 357 P.3d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 33-934(A) (2014) (lien claimant may enforce lien against “the person, firm or corporation liable for damages” to the injured person).”
Midtown v. Farmers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “In its second amended complaint, PMC sought to enforce both medical liens pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-934(A); alleged intentional interference with contractual relations between PMC and Davidson and Willis; and alleged actions on a negotiable instrument.”
Dignity v. Farmers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “3 ¶18 Dignity requests an award of attorneys’ fees incurred both on appeal and in the superior court proceedings pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-934. In the exercise of the court’s discretion, Dignity is awarded an amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal, as well as its…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-934(A) — 7 cases
Abbott v. Banner Health Network, 341 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“The Legislature amended A.R.S. § 33-934(A) in 2004 to permit providers to enforce liens against insurers who paid amounts to patients without settling the lien.”
McReynolds v. Am. Com. Ins., 235 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“”); A.R.S. § 33-934(A) (2007) (holding that the lienholder must sign to authorize the release of any lien under A.”
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 357 P.3d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See A.R.S. § 33-934(A) (2014) (lien claimant may enforce lien against “the person, firm or corporation liable for damages” to the injured person).”
Midtown v. Farmers (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“In its second amended complaint, PMC sought to enforce both medical liens pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-934(A); alleged intentional interference with contractual relations between PMC and Davidson and Willis; and alleged actions on a negotiable instrument.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-934(B) — 3 cases
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 377 P.3d 988 (Ariz. 2016).
“¶3 In January 2014, Premier sued the Navarros under A.R.S. § 33-934 to enforce the lien. The Navarros moved to dismiss the action because the lien was recorded more than thirty days after Premier first provided services to Gipson.”
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 357 P.3d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See A.R.S. § 33-934(A) (2014) (lien claimant may enforce lien against “the person, firm or corporation liable for damages” to the injured person).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-934(a) — 1 case
McReynolds v. Am. Com. Ins., 235 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“”); A.R.S. § 33-934(A) (2007) (holding that the lienholder must sign to authorize the release of any lien under 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.