Arizona Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Physicians in Medical Malpractice Case

September 6, 2024

ArMA & Other Advocates Preserve Expert Testimony for Standard of Care Lawsuits 

Expert testimony remains a requirement to establish the standard of care in medical malpractice lawsuits, according to a recent ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court. 


The Arizona Medical Association joined the American Medical Association, HonorHealth, and other healthcare advocacy groups in supporting the defendants of a local medical malpractice lawsuit, Francisco, et al. v. Affiliated Urologists, et al. The case challenged the state’s statute that requires expert testimony to establish the standard of care. The plaintiffs argued that a “black box warning” from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration was sufficient to establish the standard of care, therefore removing the need for expert testimony. 


Physician advocates, including ArMA, quickly stepped up to emphasize the importance of expert testimony in deciding cases of medical malpractice. 

Why Expert Testimony Plays a Critical Role in Medical Malpractice Cases 

ArMA submitted an amicus brief in support of upholding the current state statute that expert testimony is required in negligence claims concerning medical malpractice. While important to patient care, the FDA’s “black box warnings” are no replacement for expert clinical opinions. In determining whether the standard of care was followed in medical malpractice lawsuits, the Courts should have all of the available information, including the opinion of a clinical expert who has examined the unique case in question.   

The Court’s Opinion on Francisco, et al. v. Affiliated Urologists, et al. 

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Montgomery issued the Opinion of Court, stating that Arizona law does not permit “a warning required by the [FDA]” to be used as a “substitute for the required testimony and independently establish the standard of care.”

Physician Advocacy Protects Healthcare

The Arizona Medical Association proudly serves as Arizona physicians’ strongest advocate, ally, and resource. We amplify the physician voice at the Arizona State Capitol and beyond by lobbying for strong healthcare policies, fighting against inappropriate legislation, and engaging an energetic base of volunteer advocates. 

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .