In a landmark decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against a state statute that placed a higher burden on plaintiffs seeking to sue health care providers for negligence during public health crises. The ruling confirmed that patients have the right to bring ordinary negligence claims against healthcare professionals, regardless of whether the care was provided during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This comes as a reversal to Robin Roebuck's case, which had been dismissed under the contested statute.
The Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-516, as explained in the Court's official summary obtained by the Arizona Supreme Court's website, previously dictated that only cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct would be heard, a threshold that Roebuck's case could not originally meet. The statute was found to contravene the anti-abrogation clause of the Arizona Constitution, which is designed to protect legal rights from being overridden by new legislation, grossly affecting patients' ability to seek justice.
Justice James P. Beene authored the opinion and drew a clear distinction between gross negligence and ordinary negligence, asserting that the legislature cannot take away the right to sue for the latter without running afoul of the state constitution. "The Court held that Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-516 violates the anti-abrogation clause of the Arizona Constitution, which protects long-standing legal rights from being abolished by legislation," the Arizona Supreme Court opinion stated. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the offensive language within the statute could be severed, leaving the rest of the law intact.
The case is now remanded back to the trial court, allowing Roebuck to proceed with his ordinary negligence claim. Justice Beene's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Vice Chief Justice John R. Lopez IV, and Justice William G. Montgomery, demonstrated a unified front in the Court's interpretation of constitutional protections. However, Justice Clint Bolick, expressed reservations, agreeing with parts of the decision but not its conclusion.
