Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Upholds Constitutionality of Statutory Expert Witness Requirements at A.R.S. § 12-2604 for Medical Malpractice Actions.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with A.R.S. § 12-2604.  The statute imposes certain requirements for medical standard-of-care expert witnesses in medical malpractice actions.  Plaintiff appealed, contending the statute violates several provisions of the Arizona Constitution by restricting the Plaintiff’s choice of expert witness in a medical malpractice case.

The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the Defendants.  The Court found that the statute does not violate the equal protection, due process, anti-abrogation, special legislation, or jury trial protections of the Arizona Constitution.

Article 18, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits the abrogation of common-law tort actions, including medical malpractice claims.  But, because A.R.S. § 12-2604 does not abolish the right to bring a medical malpractice action, and allows a claimant “a reasonable possibility of obtaining legal redress,” the statute does not violate this anti-abrogration provision.

Article 18, Sections 4 and 13 of the Arizona Constitution guarantee due process and equal protection under the law.  Finding that § 12-2604 does not infringe the fundamental right to bring a medical malpractice action, the Court of Appeals applied a rational basis test for the due process/equal protection challenge.  Because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest in seeking to lower medical care costs, it does not violate the due process or equal protection requirements.  Plaintiff’s argument that medical malpractice claims and judgments have not increased malpractice insurance premiums was insufficient to overcome the presumption of constitutionality by “a clear showing of arbitrariness and irrationality.”

Article 4, Part 2, Section 19 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits certain types of special laws not applicable to all.  Legislation complies with this provision if (1) the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective, (2) the classification is legitimate, encompassing all members of the relevant class, and (3) the class is elastic, allowing members to move in and out.  Section 12-2604 satisfies all three requirements.

 Finally, the statute does not violate a claimant’s right to a jury trial under Article 2, Section 23 and Article 6, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution, or a claimant’s right of access to the courts.  Instead, the statute is a proper exercise of the legislature’s power to prescribe the elements of a medical malpractice cause of action.   

Judge Weisberg authored the opinion; Judges Hall and Swann concurred.