expert standard in Arizona

2008See id; Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., 207 Ariz. 495, ¶ 24 , 88 P.3d 565, 570 (App.2004) (if statute’s “language is unambiguous, we give effect to the language and do not use other rules of statutory construction in its interpretation”).

2008See id; Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., 207 Ariz. 495, ¶ 24 , 88 P.3d 565, 570 (App.2004) (if statute’s “language is unambiguous, we give effect to the language and do not use other rules of statutory construction in its interpretation”).

2022Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 300 (1994) (“Because a trial court and opposing counsel should be afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects before error may be raised on appeal, absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”) (citations omitted). ¶23 The court also cited an unadmitted exhibit to support its finding that Caleb “switched schools a couple of months into the year.” As Father concedes, other evidence supports this finding.

2019Montgomery v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 289, 297, ¶ 15 (App. 2014). ¶9 Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure require a meaningful pretrial expert witness disclosure comprised of an expert’s name, address and qualifications; the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; a summary of the grounds for each opinion; a statement of the compensation to be paid for the expert’s work and testimony in the case; and a list of all cases in the past 4 years in which the witness testified as an expert at a hearing or tri

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 195 , 755 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1988) (concluding that the trial court properly rejected a proposed jury instruction that a violation of a hospital's protocol was evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App. 413, 416 , 533 P.2d 721, 724 (1975) ("The personal and individualistic method of practice of [the defendant physician] is not sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for any inference that he has departed from the general medical custom and practice in the community, nor can it support a conclusion that he was negligent in any

2005Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 195 , 755 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1988) (concluding that the trial court properly rejected a proposed jury instruction that a violation of a hospital's protocol was evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App. 413, 416 , 533 P.2d 721, 724 (1975) ("The personal and individualistic method of practice of [the defendant physician] is not sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for any inference that he has departed from the general medical custom and practice in the community, nor can it support a conclusion that he was negligent in any

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 195 , 755 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1988) (concluding that the trial court properly rejected a proposed jury instruction that a violation of a hospital's protocol was evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App. 413, 416 , 533 P.2d 721, 724 (1975) ("The personal and individualistic method of practice of [the defendant physician] is not sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for any inference that he has departed from the general medical custom and practice in the community, nor can it support a conclusion that he was negligent in any

2005Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 195 , 755 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1988) (concluding that the trial court properly rejected a proposed jury instruction that a violation of a hospital's protocol was evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App. 413, 416 , 533 P.2d 721, 724 (1975) ("The personal and individualistic method of practice of [the defendant physician] is not sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for any inference that he has departed from the general medical custom and practice in the community, nor can it support a conclusion that he was negligent in any

2005Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 195 , 755 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1988) (concluding that the trial court properly rejected a proposed jury instruction that a violation of a hospital's protocol was evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App. 413, 416 , 533 P.2d 721, 724 (1975) ("The personal and individualistic method of practice of [the defendant physician] is not sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for any inference that he has departed from the general medical custom and practice in the community, nor can it support a conclusion that he was negligent in any

2005Ctr., 157 Ariz. 192, 195 , 755 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App.1988) (concluding that the trial court properly rejected a proposed jury instruction that a violation of a hospital's protocol was evidence of negligence on the part of the hospital); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App. 413, 416 , 533 P.2d 721, 724 (1975) ("The personal and individualistic method of practice of [the defendant physician] is not sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for any inference that he has departed from the general medical custom and practice in the community, nor can it support a conclusion that he was negligent in any

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard

2005See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34 , 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49 , 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339 , 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to call an independent expert on the standard