6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2011These provisions require AHCCCS to consider compromising its lien based on “[t]he nature and extent of the patient’s injury or illness,” available “insurance or other sources of indemnity,” and “[a]ny other factor relevant for a fair equitable settlement under the circumstances of a particular ease.” AHCCCS is required to compromise a claim “if, after considering the factors ..., the compromise provides a settlement of the claim that is fair and equitable.” A.R.S. § 36-2915(H). ¶ 31 We will reverse the director’s refusal to compromise AHCCCS’s claim only if “it is arbitrary, capricious, or an 2011These provisions require AHCCCS to consider compromising its lien based on “[t]he nature and extent of the patient’s injury or illness,” available “insurance or other sources of indemnity,” and “[a]ny other factor relevant for a fair equitable settlement under the circumstances of a particular ease.” AHCCCS is required to compromise a claim “if, after considering the factors ..., the compromise provides a settlement of the claim that is fair and equitable.” A.R.S. § 36-2915(H). ¶ 31 We will reverse the director’s refusal to compromise AHCCCS’s claim only if “it is arbitrary, capricious, or an | 2 | 2 |
Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizonagreen2 sentences1996While the AHCCCS standard contract provides that the contractor is independent, the language of a contract is not controlling in determining the existence of an agency relationship; rather, we look to “the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.” Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, 164 Ariz. 505, 508 , 794 P.2d 138, 141 (1990) (quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 566, 568 , 688 P.2d 192, 194 (App.1984)). 1996While the AHCCCS standard contract provides that the contractor is independent, the language of a contract is not controlling in determining the existence of an agency relationship; rather, we look to “the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.” Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, 164 Ariz. 505, 508 , 794 P.2d 138, 141 (1990) (quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 566, 568 , 688 P.2d 192, 194 (App.1984)). | 2 | 2 |
Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences1996While the AHCCCS standard contract provides that the contractor is independent, the language of a contract is not controlling in determining the existence of an agency relationship; rather, we look to “the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.” Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, 164 Ariz. 505, 508 , 794 P.2d 138, 141 (1990) (quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 566, 568 , 688 P.2d 192, 194 (App.1984)). 1996While the AHCCCS standard contract provides that the contractor is independent, the language of a contract is not controlling in determining the existence of an agency relationship; rather, we look to “the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.” Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, 164 Ariz. 505, 508 , 794 P.2d 138, 141 (1990) (quoting Anton v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 566, 568 , 688 P.2d 192, 194 (App.1984)). | 2 | 2 |
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2007A.R.S. § 12-349(F); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., 188 Ariz. 237, 244 , 934 P.2d 801, 808 (App.1997). 2007A.R.S. § 12-349(F); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., 188 Ariz. 237, 244 , 934 P.2d 801, 808 (App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration v. Carondelet Health System
green
1 sentence2009As we held in Carondelet, AHCCCS’s rule-making authority does not permit it to “eliminate ... coverage for an entire group of patients who would otherwise be covered.” 188 Ariz. at 270, 935 P.2d at 848 . ¶38 We hold in this case that AHCCCS exceeded its statutory authority by requiring Sharpe to establish a medical need in addition to the inability to chew. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.