298 P.3d 220
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mills sued Lo, an ophthalmologist, for alleged below-standard laser facial skin treatment injuries.
- Lo sought summary judgment and to disqualify Mills’s expert Dr. James Chao, a board-certified plastic surgeon.
- Lo argued Chao was not qualified under § 12-2604(A)(1) because Chao was not board-certified in ophthalmology.
- The trial court denied Lo’s motions, adopting that Lo’s cosmetic/plastic surgery specialty could qualify Chao as an expert.
- Arizona law requires expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care from a specialist who is board-certified in that specialty or claimed specialty.
- The court held § 12-2604(A)(1) does not require an expert to be board-certified in every specialty claimed by the party, only the relevant specialty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chao qualifies under § 12-2604(A)(1). | Mills argues Chao isn’t qualified because not ophthalmology-board-certified. | Lo contends Chao is disqualified since Lo’s claimed plastic/cosmetic specialty aligns with the standard of care. | Chao qualified; no need to match all claimed specialties. |
| Does the statute permit testimony from a specialist with multiple claimed specialties w.r.t. the relevant standard of care? | Mills asserts liability testimony must be by the ophthalmology specialty. | Lo argues the plastic/cosmetic specialty governs and supports Chao’s testimony. | Statute permits testimony from the relevant specialty without requiring all claimed specialties be matched. |
| Is interpretation of § 12-2604(A)(1) constitutional to avoid depriving plaintiffs of a remedy? | Mills asserts strict limitation could abrogate rights to sue. | Lo cautions against broad construction that defeats the statute’s purpose. | Statutory interpretation avoids absurd results while preserving the anti-abrogation aim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, 228 Ariz. 587 (Ariz. App. 2012) (defines 'specialty' as ABMS boards; testifying qualifications tied to training/certification)
- Awsienko v. Cohen, 227 Ariz. 256 (Ariz. App. 2011) (explains purpose of § 12-2604(A)(1) to ensure qualified experts)
- Barragan-Sierra v. State, 219 Ariz. 276 (Ariz. App. 2008) (common-sense approach to avoid absurd results in statutory interpretation)
- Patches v. Indus. Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 179 (Ariz. App. 2009) (avoid unconstitutional results when construing statutes)
- Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306 (Ariz. 2003) (right to sue must be preserved; regulation cannot abrogate action)
- Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp. for Magma Copper Co., 143 Ariz. 101 (Ariz. 1984) (anti-abrogation principle in constitutional context)