A new Arizona Supreme Court ruling upholds a state law that seeks to screen out flimsy medical-malpractice suits by requiring that plaintiffs have a testifying witness from the same medical specialty as the doctor being sued.
The court’s unanimous ruling issued Tuesday says the requirement makes it more difficult to file medical-malpractice suits but is not unconstitutional because the requirement doesn’t flatly prevent plaintiffs from having their day in court.
The ruling was issued in a case from Tucson in which a University Physicians Healthcare doctor was sued. The doctor was sued by the father of a 17-year-old girl who died from blood clots after being hospitalized for other blood clots.
The Supreme Court’s ruling sends the case back down to trial court for further proceedings.
Topics Lawsuits
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Florida Insurance Costs 14.5% Lower Than Without Reforms, Report Finds 
AIG Underwriting Income Up 48% in Q4 on North America Commercial 
AIG’s Zaffino: Outcomes From AI Use Went From ‘Aspirational’ to ‘Beyond Expectations’ 
How One Fla. Insurance Agent Allegedly Used Another’s License to Swipe Commissions 
