Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn
231 Ariz. 67
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Blackburn filed APSA claims for Billie Jo's injuries from April–July 2008 at Cornerstone LTAC; Billie Jo was a vulnerable adult under APSA §46-451(A)(9).
- Blackburn certified under §12-2603 and attached Joyce Black’s expert affidavit; Black is a Nebraska RN with wound-care expertise and a PhD in nursing.
- Respondent trial court held §12-2604 does not apply to APSA claims but found Black qualified to testify on nursing, CNS, and CNA standards under Rule 702 with some limitations.
- Court accepted special action jurisdiction; issues center on whether §12-2604 applies to APSA and Black's qualifications to testify to nursing standards.
- Court held §12-2604 applies to APSA medical-negligence claims and Black is qualified to testify as to RN/LPN/CNA standards, subject to limitations on certain areas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §12-2604 apply to APSA-based medical negligence claims? | Blackburn argues §12-2604 applies to APSA claims. | Cornerstone contends §12-2604 does not apply to APSA. | Yes; §12-2604 applies to APSA medical-negligence claims. |
| Is Black qualified under §12-2604 to testify about nursing standards for RNs/LPNs/CNAs? | Black is qualified as an RN with extensive wound-care and teaching background. | Cornerstone argues Black lacks formal education in wound care and should be limited. | Yes; Black is qualified to testify about RN/LPN/CNA standards, with limitations on certain topics. |
| Can nursing-staffing testimony be admitted under §12-2604 and Rule 702? | Testimony on staffing reflects nursing standards and Billie Jo’s care needs. | Issues of staffing require appropriate foundation under Rule 703. | Staffing opinions may be admitted if properly grounded; not abuse of discretion. |
| Do APSA and MMA interplay affect admissibility of standard-of-care evidence under §12-2604? | APSA can involve medical negligence and §12-2604 governs expert qualifications. | Some argue MMA exclusivity, APSA supplemental; argue narrow interpretation. | APSA and MMA can interrelate; §12-2604 governs medical-malpractice-like testimony in APSA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of McGill v. Albrecht, 203 Ariz. 525 (Ariz. 2002) (APSA and MMA interplay; single acts may support APSA claims when connected to care)
- Lo v. Lee, 230 Ariz. 457 (Ariz. 2012) (Statutes construed together; nursing as a health profession for §12-2604(A)(2))
- Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 218 Ariz. 317 (Ariz. App. 2008) (Ambiguity of specialty; §12-2604(A)(1) interpreted; expert must match specialty)
- Baker v. Univ. Physicians Health Care, 228 Ariz. 587 (Ariz. 2012) (Ambiguity in defining 'specialty'; informs interpretation of §12-2604)
- Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 (Ariz. 2009) (Separation-of-powers discussion; applying §12-2604 in APSA not directly addressed here)
- Potter v. Vanderpool, 225 Ariz. 495 (Ariz. 2010) (Interlocutory special-action review of evidentiary rulings; discretion considerations)