Governale v. Lieberman, 226 Ariz. 443

Governale filed a February 2008 medical malpractice action against Lieberman and ACN for alleged departure from the standard of care.
Governale initially disclosed Richeimer (an anesthesiologist) as an expert, but §12-2604 required a same-specialty expert; dismissal was sought.
The trial court granted more time to retain a new expert after finding Richeimer unsuitable under §12-2604.
Seisinger v. Siebel held §12-2604 violated separation of powers, prompting reconsideration; Arizona Supreme Court later reversed to uphold §12-2604 as substantive.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled §12-2604 increases the plaintiff's burden by defining required expert qualifications for medical malpractice actions.
The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants; Governale appealed challenging constitutionality under multiple constitutional provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Anti-abrogation clash	§12-2604 abrogates the right to pursue a medical malpractice action by limiting experts.	Statute does not abrogate; it regulates burden of proof and expert qualification.	Statute does not abrogate; burden regulation is constitutional.
Equal protection/due process	§12-2604 arbitrarily burdens medical malpractice claimants.
Rational basis review applies; statute serves a legitimate public health objective.	Rational basis upheld; no equal protection/due process violation.
Special law	Law singles out plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases.	Classification rationally related to public health objective; elastic and uniformly applied.	Not a forbidden special law.
Right to jury trial	restrictions on expert may undermine jury’s ability to evaluate claims.	Jury still determines ultimate issues; statute prescribes elements, not verdict rights.	No violation of jury trial rights.
Access to courts	Statutory requirements create a barrier to bringing claims.
Requirements are even-handed and do not bar access to courts.	No infringement on access to courts.

Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306 (2003) (anti-abrogation scope for common law actions)
Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 (2009) (§12-2604 substantive and constitutional implications)
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 173 Ariz. 342 (App. 1992) (equal protection/due process rational basis approach)
Hunter Contracting Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz. 318 (App. 1997) (expert affidavit requirement burden on access to action)
Kenyon v. Hammer, 142 Ariz. 69 (1984) (fundamental right to bring negligence action)
State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Premier Manuf. Sys., Inc., 217 Ariz. 222 (Ariz. 2007) (rational basis review for regulatory classifications)
Eastin v. Broomfield, 116 Ariz. 576 (1977) (jury trial and final arbiter concept in medical contexts)