Arizona Medical Malpractice Funding

Arizona medical malpractice claims are governed by the general two-year personal injury period in A.R.S. section 12-542, which expressly includes medical malpractice actions as defined in section 12-561. Arizona has no separate med-mal limitations statute and no statute of repose for medical malpractice. The discovery rule is judge-made: under Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310 (2002), the claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know both that an injury occurred and that it was caused by the defendant's conduct. A minor's claim is tolled until age 18 under A.R.S. section 12-502. Arizona has no presuit notice period, but under A.R.S. section 12-2603 the plaintiff must certify with the complaint whether expert testimony is required and, if so, serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit with the initial Rule 26.1 disclosure stating the expert's qualifications, the factual basis for the claim, the standard-of-care violation, and causation. The court may extend the deadline; failure to comply results in dismissal without prejudice. Claims against public hospitals and the University of Arizona health system require a notice of claim within 180 days under A.R.S. section 12-821.01 and must be filed within one year.

Pure comparative fault under A.R.S. section 12-2505. A med-mal plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's relative degree of fault but are not barred at any percentage, except where the plaintiff intentionally, willfully, or wantonly caused the injury. Under A.R.S. section 12-2506, each defendant is severally liable only for its own percentage of fault, and fault may be allocated to nonparties.

Arizona has no cap of any kind on damages in medical malpractice, and the Legislature cannot enact one. Article 2, section 31 of the Arizona Constitution provides that no law shall be enacted limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person, and article 18, section 6 provides that the right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation. The Supreme Court of Arizona has applied these provisions to strike med-mal-specific procedural limits, including in Kenyon v. Hammer, 142 Ariz. 69 (1984). No Arizona cap has ever been enacted because it would be facially unconstitutional. Punitive damages are available on a showing of an evil mind by clear and convincing evidence and are likewise uncapped. Claims against public entities are uncapped but subject to the notice-of-claim statute.

Arizona does not award prejudgment interest on unliquidated personal injury damages. Under Fleming v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 149 (1984), prejudgment interest is available only on liquidated claims where the amount is capable of exact computation, which excludes pain and suffering and other general damages. Interest on the judgment runs from entry at the rate in A.R.S. section 44-1201. An offer of judgment under Rule 68, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, can shift costs and expert fees but does not create prejudgment interest.

Under A.R.S. section 12-401, a med-mal action is filed in the county where the defendant resides, subject to statutory exceptions that permit suit where a corporation does business, where any of multiple defendants resides, or where the cause of action arose. In practice Arizona med-mal claims are filed in the superior court of the county of the hospital or practice, most often Maricopa or Pima County. Arizona has no med-mal-specific venue provision.

Arizona regulates consumer litigation funding under the Litigation financing disclosure and consumer protection statute (SB 1215, 2025), A.R.S. §§ 12-3451 to 12-3456 (Title 12, Ch. 28). No statutory rate or fee cap.

Why is Arizona's constitutional ban on damages caps important for med-mal funding?

Two constitutional provisions — article 2, section 31 and article 18, section 6 — bar any statutory limit on personal injury damages, so Arizona med-mal claims are never capped and cannot be capped by legislation. Catastrophic injury, birth injury, and wrongful death claims are underwritten on the full documented damages record.

Arizona is unusual in that it has never enacted a med-mal cap to be struck down; the constitutional text is so direct that no attempt has been made. Punitive damages are also available and uncapped on a clear-and-convincing showing. The limiting factor in Arizona is several liability under section 12-2506, which allocates fault to each defendant and to nonparties, so collectibility is analyzed defendant by defendant.

How does the section 12-2603 preliminary expert affidavit affect funding timing?

The affidavit is served with the initial disclosure rather than filed with the complaint, so a filed Arizona complaint alone does not establish expert support. Underwriting typically waits for the section 12-2603 affidavit, which sets out the expert's qualifications, the standard-of-care breach, and causation in a form the defense will test.

A non-compliant affidavit leads to dismissal without prejudice, and the court may allow time to cure. The affiant must meet A.R.S. section 12-2604's specialty-match requirement, which the defense frequently challenges. A served, compliant affidavit from a properly matched expert is the point at which most Arizona med-mal claims become underwritable on their merits.

What does Arizona's pure comparative rule mean for a partly at-fault patient?

Under section 12-2505, a plaintiff at any percentage of fault still recovers, reduced proportionally, unless the conduct was intentional or wanton. Patient noncompliance defenses therefore reduce the expected recovery rather than threaten the claim, which keeps partial-fault cases fundable on a discounted basis.

The interaction with several liability matters: a defendant is responsible only for its own share, and fault assigned to a nonparty reduces the recoverable amount. Underwriting models the likely allocation among plaintiff, defendants, and nonparties rather than treating the fault defense as binary. Arizona juries receive comparative fault instructions in medical negligence cases as a matter of course.