Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-519 (2026)

Discharge of voluntary patients

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The medical director of the agency shall discharge any patient admitted voluntarily who has recovered or who is no longer benefiting from the evaluation, care or treatment available, except as provided in subsection B of this section.

B. Upon written request by a patient admitted pursuant to section 36-518, subsection A or by the parent, guardian or custodian of a patient admitted pursuant to section 36-518, subsection C, the patient shall be given a discharge within twenty-four hours after the request, excluding weekends or holidays unless the medical director of the agency has proceeded pursuant to section 36-531, subsections B and C and section 36-533. The costs of such proceedings shall be a charge against the county of the patient's residence.

C. If the medical director of the agency finds that a patient admitted voluntarily is a person with a grave disability and requires the service of a guardian or conservator or both for the protection of health and property, he shall proceed pursuant to section 36-531, subsections B and C and section 36-533 unless it is appropriate to discharge the patient to suitable alternative arrangements for care, treatment and protection.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1976–1985 · leading case: In re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Mental Health Matter No. MH 863-4-83, 700 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Mental Health Matter No. MH 863-4-83, 700 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 36-519(B), 527(A), 531(D). Appellant then argues that having excluded weekends and holidays in these instances, the legislature impliedly intended not to exclude them in other instances.”
Pima Cnty. Pub. Fiduciary v. Superior Court, 546 P.2d 354 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “§ 36-518 and § 36-519 as to requiring the *88 concurrence of two independent medical opinions as to institutionalization.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-519(B): 1 case
In re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Mental Health Matter No. MH 863-4-83, 700 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “, A.R.S. §§ 36-519(B), 527(A), 531(D). Appellant then argues that having excluded weekends and holidays in these instances, the legislature impliedly intended not to exclude them in other instances.”
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.