36-545.06. County services; county responsibility
A. Each county, or any combination of counties, shall provide directly or by contract the services of a screening agency and an evaluation agency for the purposes of this chapter.
B. On a request made by a resident of the county pursuant to this chapter, a county shall be required to provide screening or evaluation.
C. Each county shall coordinate the provision of mental health services required pursuant to this section with the administration or as delegated by the administration to a regional behavioral health authority.
D. For a person who is admitted to an evaluation agency for a court-ordered evaluation, the county's responsibility continues until the evaluation period ends, which is when one of the following occurs:
1. The petition for court-ordered treatment is filed with the court.
2. The individual agrees to voluntary treatment.
3. The individual is released from court-ordered evaluation.
Notes of Decisions
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr., Inc., 695 P.2d 270 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 12× “A.R.S. § 36-545.06 provides that: A. Each county, or any combination of counties, shall provide directly or by contract the services of a screening agency and an evaluation agency for the purposes of this chapter.”
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 695 P.2d 255 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 4× “In support of the argument that the duty of care is delegable, the majority of the Court of Appeals, and appellee-Yuma County, rely on A.R.S. §§ 36-545.06, -545.07 in effect at the time of Alcaida’s detention and death.”
Est. of Maudsley v. Meta Servs., Inc., 258 P.3d 248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 36-545.06 (2009). These statutes demonstrate that if a person seeks mental health services from a mental health facility operating under the Act, the facility must screen and, in some eases, evaluate and treat that person.”
Cohen v. Maricopa Cnty., 263 P.3d 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “To the extent that the County possesses a duty to coordinate screening and evaluation services with ValueOptions pursuant to § 36-545.06, we do not believe that such duty extends to monitoring the daily decisions of, and actual treatment rendered by, a contractor.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-545.06(A) — 3 cases
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 695 P.2d 255 (Ariz. 1985).
“In support of the argument that the duty of care is delegable, the majority of the Court of Appeals, and appellee-Yuma County, rely on A.R.S. §§ 36-545.06, -545.07 in effect at the time of Alcaida’s detention and death.”
Cohen v. Maricopa Cnty., 263 P.3d 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“To the extent that the County possesses a duty to coordinate screening and evaluation services with ValueOptions pursuant to § 36-545.06, we do not believe that such duty extends to monitoring the daily decisions of, and actual treatment rendered by, a contractor.”
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.