Medical Malpractice Legislation

I want to give you some background of our malpractice statutes in Arizona.

According to A.R.S. Section 12-542, there is a two year statute of limitation for medical malpractice cases. Defendants are proportionally liable for damages in direct proportion to their percentage of fault, unless the defendant acted in concert with another person (A.R.S. Section 12-2506). Also, the Constitution prohibits any limits on damages (Article 2, Section 31).
Sen. Allen has run legislation for several years that would have established statutory elements of proof for medical malpractice cases related to emergency health care professionals or hospitals. The bills have either been vetoed by the Governor, died in the process or used as vehicle bills somewhere in the process. Inevitably, the bill always dies.

In 2005, the Legislature added Laws 2005, Chapter 183, Section 1 (now A.R.S. Section 12-2604), which outlined the requirements of medical expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. On June 17, 2008, the Court of Appeals, Division 1 held A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A) was unconstitutional because the statute "cannot be harmonized" with A.R.S. Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, which was established by the Arizona Supreme Court. Rule 702 relates to testimony by experts and the court felt that A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A) precluded witnesses that were otherwise qualified under Rule 702 from testifying in a malpractice case unless that witness met the additional criteria established in A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A).

Additionally, in 2007 Senator Leff sponsored SB 1505 which would have prohibited the admission of scientific opinion testimony in an action for person injury, death or damage to property unless the court determined that the expert's opinion is reliable and useful, based on the consideration of criteria that were outlined in the bill. The bill died in the Senate when it was Third Read. It is my understanding that the bill had similar issues as those of A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A). Some felt that the bill was unconstitutional and that it was really a separation of powers issue. It was mentioned that by establishing certain criteria, some testimony would be excluded.

Attached are the relevant statutes, sections of the Constitution, bill summaries.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/00542.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/02604.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/02506.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/31.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/summary/h.sb1351_04-17-06_asengrossedandaspassedhouse.doc.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/summary/h.sb1036_04-20-05_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/summary/s.1505ced_caucus-floor.doc.htm