Cited by

of Regents, () (recognizing the superior court’s broad discretion in the conduct and control of court proceedings).

33, 95 ¶ 39 (2009) (“Arizona courts have long held that the standard of care normally must be established by expert medical testimony.”); Duncan, 205 Ariz. at 310 ¶ 13 (“[T]he precise parameters of the required disclosure for any particular informed consent case [are] to be established by expert testimony in accordance with the applicable standard of care.” (cleaned up) ( n.4 (1978))); Riedisser, 111 Ariz. at 544–45 (explaining that “the custom of the medical profession to warn must be establish

-09 (1978) (noting that when a patient has given informed consent, a physician is not liable to a patient for unfavorable results absent malpractice or breach of contract in cases of guarantee or warrantee); see also Nuzzo v. Camarata, 2018 WL 4148990, *5, ¶ 21 (Ariz. App. Apr.

In its analysis, for the proposition that “[a] fundamental rule of the American system of jurisprudence prohibits an attorney from testifying in a case he is handling.” Cottonwood Estates, 128 Ariz. at 102.

at 309, ¶ 9 , 70 P.3d at 438

(“failure of a physician to disclose a known risk does not, standing alone, constitute sufficient grounds for a malpractice action”; occurrence of risk must be harmful to patient since negligence unrelated to injury is nonactionable).

(noting “the fundamental right of every adult of sound mind to determine what should be done to his [or her] body”).

and Laubner v. Altick, 9 Ariz.App.

Arizona also recognizes that there is a fiduciary relationship between the physician and patient which requires the physician “to exercise the utmost good faith.”