| Malpractice Info |
|
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Statue of Limitations |
| A: |
Statute of Limitations: In Arizona, a medical malpractice action must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues. ARS Section 12-542. A leading Arizona case held that the limitations period did not begin to run until the manifestation of the injury. A discovery rule is now routinely applied in other types of cases arising under the current two year statute. The statute of limitations is tolled if a claimant is under eighteen years of age, mentally incompetent, or imprisoned.
Wrongful death claims accrue at the date of death and must be brought within two years from the date of death. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Contributory or Comparative Negligence |
| A: |
Arizona adheres to a pure form of comparative negligence. A claimant's award is diminished in proportion to the claimant's relative degree of fault, but the claimant's fault generally will not act as a bar to recovery. However, a trier of fact may bar recovery if the claimant willfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the death or injury. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Joint and Several Liability |
| A: |
Arizona has abolished the doctrine of joint and several liability. Tortfeasors are only severally liable for the amount of claimant's damages equal to their percentage of fault, unless they were in a principal agent relationship, acting in concert, or pursuing a common plan or design to commit a tortuous act and actively take a part in it. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Contribution |
| A: |
The Arizona Supreme Court has held that under ARS Section 12-2506, joint and several liability has almost been completely abolished. There is no right of contribution where a settling defendant's liability is several only; however, in those limited situations in which joint liability survives, contribution is still available. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Vicarious Liability |
| A: |
Arizona courts have recognized the principle of ostensible or parent agency in the hospital-physician context. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Expert Testimony |
| A: |
Expert testimony is generally required in order to establish a breach of the standard of care, unless the alleged negligence is grossly apparent, or comes within the common knowledge of laymen. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Damage Caps |
| A: |
Arizona does not place a cap on the amount of damages recoverable in a medical malpractice action. Indeed, the Arizona Constitution prohibits the enactment of any law limiting the damages one may recover for personal injury or death. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Statutory Caps on Attorney's Fees |
| A: |
Arizona does not place a limit on the fees recoverable by an attorney in a medical malpractice action. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Periodic Payments |
| A: |
An Arizona statute provides that any party to a medical malpractice action may elect to receive or pay future damages periodically. However, the Arizona Supreme Court has held this statute to be unconstitutional. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Collateral Source Rule |
| A: |
In Arizona, a defendant may elect to introduce evidence of the claimant's receipt of collateral payments, such as disability benefits. If the defendant elects to introduce such evidence, however, the plaintiff may then offer evidence of payments made for the collateral benefits. The trier of fact is charged with the responsibility of weighing the collateral source evidence in its calculation of damages. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Prejudgment Interest |
| A: |
Prejudgment interest is available to personal injury claimants only when the damages were subject to exact computation prior to verdict. Non-economic damages are not subject to exact computation prior to verdict, and therefore, prejudgment interest thereon is not appropriate. Thus, prejudgment interest is not allowed with respect to noneconomic damages, but it remains unclear whether prejudgment interest is available with respect to economic damages. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Immunities |
| A: |
The Arizona Supreme Court has abolished sovereign immunity in Arizona. However, health care providers are immune from liability with respect to damages incurred in connection with health care services at nonprofit clinics where neither the physician nor the clinic receive compensation unless the provider was grossly negligent. In addition, both the state and its political subdivisions are immune from liability for punitive damages. |
| |
| | TOP OF PAGE | |
| Q: |
Arbitration |
| A: |
Arizona does not mandate arbitration in medical malpractice actions. |
| |
