Cited by

See United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Props., L.L.C., n.1 (App. 2000); ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

See, ¶ 17 (App. 2001); ¶ 23 (App. 1998).

the ability to enforce a lien against those liable to the patient for damages in order to secure the providers’ customary charges for care and treatment of an injured person”); ¶ 31, (holding that liens against the tort recovery of AHCCCS patients are enforceable despite there being “no right to recover directly” from the patient).

§ 1396a(a)(30)(A) (West 2014) (establishing payment rates is federally mandated); ¶ 4 , (“AHCCCS pays care providers a percentage of billed charges, based on a statutory formula.”).

¶ 9 A health care provider is entitled to a lien for its treatment of a patient pursuant to § 33-931(A) to “lessen the burden on hospitals and other medical providers imposed by non-paying accident eases.” ¶ 19 , ( ¶ 18 , ).

¶ 7 The common fund doctrine provides that a person who employs “attorneys for the preservation of a common fund may be entitled to have them attorney’s fees paid out of that fund.” ¶ 22

at 387, ¶ 19 , 71 P.3d at 914 ( ¶ 18 , ).

(claim for estoppel requires detrimental reliance which requires showing of injury or prejudice because action taken in reliance).

¶38 Moreover, we agree with the trial court’s reliance on the “common fund doctrine” P.2d 246 (App. 1998).

¶ 26 “The common fund doctrine is a general rule of equity that ‘a person or persons who employ attorneys for the preservation of a common fund may be entitled to have their attorney’s fees paid out of that fund.’ ” , ( , ).

The party to be estopped must induce reliance “ ‘by his acts, representations or admissions intentionally or through culpable negligence.’ ” , -50 (App.1998), quoting St.

¶ 16 The common fund doctrine, however, is an exception to the general rule that attorneys’ fees may be awarded “only when expressly authorized by contract or statute.” Id.; see also Kerr, 197 Ariz. at 217-18, ¶ 19 , 3 P.3d at 1137-38 ; -49, ¶22 , -52 (App.1998).

Similarly, in LaBombard v. Samaritan Health System, this court upheld a health care provider’s right to recover on its lien from third-party settlement proceeds, noting that ‘“where rights are clearly established and defined by statute, equity has no power to change or upset such rights.’ ” , (citations omitted).

ct, each side in a litigated case must bear its own attorneys’ fees,” allowing a court to award attorney fees “to counsel for the prevailing side whose efforts in litigation create or preserve a common fund from which others who have undertaken no risk or cost will nevertheless benefit.” P.2d 246 (App. 1998).

§ 33-934, we also note that our holding is quite consistent with the underlying purpose of the health care provider lien statutes, which are designed to “lessen the burden on hospitals and other medical providers imposed by non-paying accident cases.” ¶ 18, (internal citation omitted).

they are [only] asserting a statutory lien against the enrollee’s tort claim.” 2 Id.; , (AHCCCS liens enforceable against enrollee’s tort recovery even though enrollee not personally liable).

-52, ¶¶ 35-37 , -55 (App. 1998) (medical care provider’s "customary charges" under medical lien statute may differ from provider’s "billed charges”).

(liens against tort recovery of AHCCCS members enforceable even when there is “no right to recover directly” from patient).

ot “foreclos[e] the court’s exercise of its equity power to apportion the attorneys’ fee among those parties who benefitted from the attorneys’ work.” “The common fund doctrine is a general rule of equity that ‘a person or persons who employ attorneys for the preservation of a common fund may be entitled to have their attorney’s fees paid out of that fund.’ ”