Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc., 688 P.2d 605.

63 citing documents.

Salazar v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Salazar v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hosp., Inc., a jury should not be instructed on loss of chance.
Harianto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Harianto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Antoinette Windhurst v. Adoc Ariz. 2023
Antoinette Windhurst v. Adoc Ariz. 2023
Hosp., Inc., (noting that hospitals and physicians have distinct standards of care).
Polyard v. Alattar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Polyard v. Alattar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
ANTOINETTE WINDHURST v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
ANTOINETTE WINDHURST v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Hosp., Inc., (hospitals and physicians have distinct standards of care).
Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hosp., Inc., (applying an increased risk of harm causation standard); (noting “there is liability if the result would not have occurred but for defendant’s conduct, even if that conduct contributed only a little to plaintiff’s injuries”); (19
Koskovich v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Koskovich v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Relying on Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc., MCSHCD argues this evidence did not rise to the threshold level of "increased risk of harm" necessary to establish causation, and contends the superior court erred in denying its motion for new trial on this basis.
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Clemens v. Dmb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Clemens v. Dmb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hosp., Inc., -08, -16 (1984).
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hosp., Inc., –08, –16 (1984) (finding a material question of fact where the plaintiff’s expert testified there would have been a “‘substantially better chance’ of full recovery had surgery been performed at once .
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital - Carondelet, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Hosp., Inc., see generally David A. Fischer, Causation in Fact in Omission Cases, 1992 Utah L. Rev. 1335, 1335-36, 1348 (1992) (explaining why problems of proof arising from tortious failures to act best resolved by substantial-factor test).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hosp., Inc. , (quoting Herskovits v. Group Health Coop.
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Hosp., Inc., -08 , -16 (1984) (reversing judgment in favor of hospital in medical malpractice action for failure to give loss of chance of recovery instruction based on Restatement § 323).
Stanley v. McCarver 92 P.3d 849 Ariz. 2004
Stanley v. McCarver 92 P.3d 849 Ariz. 2004
Hosp., , (applying related Restatement § 323).
Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hosp., Inc., , (whether hospital’s failure to promptly operate deprived plaintiff of “some significant chance of survival or better recovery” was question for jury); -63 , -16 (App.1992) (addressing question whether defendants’ failure t
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc.
DeLoach v. Alfred 960 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1998
DeLoach v. Alfred 960 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1998
See Bryant, 146 Ariz. at 46 , 703 P.2d at 1195 ; Thompson v. Sun City Community Hosp., Inc., , (primary function of tort system is deterrence of negligent conduct).
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District 945 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District 945 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Thompson v. Sun City Community Hosp., Inc.
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration v. Carondelet Health System 935 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration v. Carondelet Health System 935 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Similarly, the Arizona Supreme Court, in defining emergency care, has noted that although there are various definitions “the need for immediate attention seems to be the common thread.”
Carondelet Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 897 P.2d 1388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Carondelet Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 897 P.2d 1388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
R9-22-101.38, as well as the definitions of emergency listed above in Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc., [ , ] this admission was not unforeseen, was not sudden, and the absence of immediate medical attention would not have placed the patient’s health in serious jeopardy.
Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lohse v. Faultner 860 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The case most helpful to plaintiffs on recovery for loss of a chance — Thomp son v. Sun City Community Hosp., Inc., , — was actually cited to us by Southwest.
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965).
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See e.g. Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, Inc.