357 P.3d 840
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Premier Pain Management treated a third party injured in an automobile accident from June 29, 2011 to October 9, 2011 and recorded a health care lien on September 16, 2011.
- The third party later settled her claim with the tortfeasor’s insurer; she did not pay Premier.
- Premier sued the Navarros to enforce its lien; the superior court dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding Premier did not record the lien within 30 days after the patient "has received any services" as required by A.R.S. § 33-932.
- Premier argued that recording within 30 days after "any services" (e.g., the last service) permits retroactive lien coverage for all prior services.
- Navarros argued the statute’s distinction between hospitals (30 days after discharge) and non-hospital providers demonstrates the 30-day window for non-hospitals cannot be read to cover services rendered long before recording.
- The court reviewed statutory language, context, and purpose and concluded the lien for non-hospital providers reaches back 30 days before recording and prospectively thereafter (if other formalities are met).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-hospital provider who records a lien "before or within thirty days after the patient has received any services" may retroactively claim for all services provided earlier, or only for services within 30 days before recording | Premier: "Any services" can mean the last (or any) service; recording within 30 days after that service perfects lien for all prior services | Navarros: Reading would erase the statutory distinction between hospitals and other providers; "any services" cannot be read to cover services long before recording | Court: "Any services" permits retroactive coverage only for services within 30 days before recording and prospectively thereafter; hospitals retain broader 30-day-after-discharge rule |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fikes, 228 Ariz. 389 (App. 2011) (court may not construe statute to render other parts superfluous)
- Action Marine, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 218 Ariz. 141 (2008) (statutory interpretation requires giving effect to legislative intent and construing statute as a whole)
- Blankenbaker v. Jonovich, 205 Ariz. 383 (2003) (purpose of health care lien statutes is to lessen burden on medical providers from non-paying accident cases)
- State v. Baggett, 232 Ariz. 424 (2013) (court will not read limitations into a statute that legislatures omitted)
- Hart v. Hart, 220 Ariz. 183 (2009) (standard principle: do not judicially impose unchosen requirements into statute)