Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
JILLY v. Rayes
Citations: 209 P.3d 176; 221 Ariz. 40; 555 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 33; 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 72Docket: 1 CA-SA 08-0269
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; April 30, 2009; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. 12-2603) mandates that plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases certify whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care or liability of health care professionals. If such testimony is deemed necessary, plaintiffs must provide a preliminary expert opinion affidavit with their initial disclosures, unless a court grants an extension. In this case, plaintiffs filed a malpractice complaint after the death of Cora Carter following cardiac surgery. The defendant doctors sought to enforce compliance with A.R.S. 12-2603, but the trial court denied their motion, leading to this special action, which the Court of Appeals accepted due to its statewide significance. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, affirming the statute's requirements and directing further proceedings in line with this ruling. The preliminary expert opinion affidavit must include the expert's qualifications regarding the health care professional's standard of care, the factual basis for claims against the professional, specific acts or omissions constituting violations of the standard of care, and how these caused or contributed to the claimant's damages. According to Rule 16(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial conference determines the schedule for disclosing expert witnesses, with simultaneous disclosures required within 30 to 90 days after the conference, depending on complexity. Constitutional challenges to statutes are reviewed de novo, with unconstitutionality only declared when there is no reasonable doubt of a conflict with constitutional provisions. The court upheld A.R.S. 12-2602, which mandates disclosure of preliminary expert opinions in cases against licensed professionals, ruling it does not conflict with the Arizona Supreme Court's rulemaking authority or existing procedural rules. The trial court previously found A.R.S. 12-2603 in conflict with certain procedural rules, particularly regarding expert witness disclosure timelines; however, A.R.S. 12-2603's requirement for a preliminary expert opinion is provisional and serves to filter meritless claims, addressing concerns about frivolous lawsuits while allowing for the expert's provisional status to limit immediate exposure to deposition. A.R.S. 12-2603(C) grants trial courts the authority to extend compliance timelines upon request and with good cause, or through mutual agreement between parties. If such an extension is granted, the court may also modify the timing and sequence of disclosures required from the healthcare professional involved in the claim or any designated nonparty at fault. The statute is deemed constitutional as it does not conflict with the supreme court's rulemaking authority. The previous decision of the trial court is reversed, and further proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with this opinion. Additionally, Rule 26.1(b)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that parties make initial disclosures within forty days of a responsive pleading unless altered by agreement or court order. The case Seisinger v. Siebel, M.D. reinforces that A.R.S. 12-2604(A), despite conflicting with a rule of evidence, is substantive and thus does not infringe on separation of powers, which does not impact the current analysis.