Estate of Desela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1, 226 Ariz. 387

Maddison DeSela sustained a life-threatening injury at Prescott High School on Nov 10, 2004.
Maddison’s mother assigned to Maddison all medical-expense claims on Jan 31, 2005.
Maddison filed a notice of claim on Mar 22, 2005 under ARS §12-821.01(A).
Maddison turned eighteen on Dec 29, 2006; conservator filed a second claim later.
Estate filed the negligence action on Dec 31, 2007 within one judicial year after Maddison’s eighteenth birthday.
Superior court dismissed the medical-expenses claim; court of appeals reversed; Arizona Supreme Court granted review for statewide impact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who has the right to recover pre-majority medical expenses	Estate/plantiff argues both minor and parents may recover	PUSD argues Pearson controls: only parents recover unless assigned	Right belongs to both; no double recovery allowed; Pearson overruled on this point
Effect of assignment and tolling on the limitations period	Assignment tolls or permits timely action by Maddison	Questioned applicability of §12-502 to assigned actions	Assignment allows recovery by minor; action timely under §§12-502 and 12-821

Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington, 60 Ariz. 354, 137 P.2d 381 (Ariz. 1943) (reconsidered rule that parents alone may recover medical expenses; child may recover if assigned or not barred by double recovery)
S.A. Gerrard Co. v. Couch, 43 Ariz. 57, 29 P.2d 151 (Ariz. 1934) (limited view of parents' ownership in minor’s medical-expense claims)
Villareal v. Ariz. Dept. of Transp., 160 Ariz. 474, 774 P.2d 213 (Ariz. 1989) (recognizes policy-based adaptation of common law; double recovery can be avoided by instructions)
Webb v. Gittlen, 217 Ariz. 363, 174 P.3d 275 (Ariz. 2008) (assignment considerations in minor’s claims; evolution of modern approach)
Lopez v. Cole, 214 Ariz. 536, 155 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. App. 2007) (discussion of assignment and major-minor timing considerations)