Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of Regents
228 Ariz. 587
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Baker filed a wrongful death suit seeking damages for Tara’s death allegedly caused by Wittman’s standard of care.
- Wittman is a pediatrician with a subspecialty in pediatric hematology/oncology employed by UPH.
- Baker offered Dr. Brouillard as an expert, but Brouillard is board-certified in internal medicine with oncology/hematology subspecialties.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Brouillard did not meet § 12-2604(A)(1)’s same-specialty requirement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding Brouillard not qualified under § 12-2604(A)(1) and did not address § 12-2604(A)(2).
- The court remanded later to consider whether the statute’s interpretation should be clarified and for Baker to present a qualifying expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brouillard satisfies § 12-2604(A)(1) as Wittman’s same specialty | Baker contends hematology is Wittman’s specialty | Brouillard is internal medicine; not the same specialty as Wittman | Brouillard not board-certified in Wittman’s specialty; § 12-2604(A)(1) not satisfied |
| Whether the statute’s interpretation to require same specialty aligns with legislative intent | Statute should allow cross-specialty testimony given training overlap | Statute requires same specialty; cannot read in subspecialty equivalence | Statute interpreted to require same specialty; majority refuses subspecialty reading |
| Whether § 12-2604 violates the Anti-Abrogation Clause | Statute abrogates the right to bring claim | Statute regulates burden of proof, not abrogation | Not violating Anti-Abrogation Clause; permissible regulation of a claim’s burden |
| Whether § 12-2604 violates equal protection or due process | Statute unduly restricts expert selection from pool | No fundamental right impacted and no strict scrutiny applies | No equal protection or due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (Ariz. 2005) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent guidance)
- Awsienko v. Cohen, 227 Ariz. 256 (Ariz. 2011) (defining ‘specialist’ and ABMS framework context)
- Samaritan Health Sys. v. Superior Court, 194 Ariz. 284 (Ariz. 1998) (interpretation of statute appears to contemplate consistency with related statutes)
- Governale v. Lieberman, 226 Ariz. 443 (Ariz. 2011) (statute regulates right of action by imposing a burden of proof; not an abrogation)
- Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C., 207 Ariz. 487 (Ariz. 2003) (anti-abrogation analysis and burden discussion)