Cited by

4 ROBIN ROEBUCK v. MAYO CLINIC, ET AL. Opinion of the Court Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 28 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 13 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 13 (2003) (acknowledging the problem caused by “[t]he inconsistent use of .

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 13 (2003).

Relying on Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd., Dillon argues the superior court’s ruling applying the MMA unconstitutionally abrogated her right under Article 18, Section 6, of the Arizona Constitution (the anti-abrogation clause)4 to recover damages caused by Pitt’s breach of his common-law fiduciary duty.

Imaging, Ltd., -10, ¶¶ 11-13 (2003) (lack of informed consent claim involves the physician’s duty to inform the patient of inherent risks in surgery or treatment to which he has consented and should be pled in negligence); ¶ 12 (App. 2013) (duty to disclose relevant risks exists under the info

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 11 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 9 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 33 (2003); Wells Fargo Bank, 201 Ariz. at 483–84 ¶ 20.

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd ., , 308, ¶ 2, , 437 (2003).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 (2003); Angus Med.

Imaging, Ltd., -10, 313, ¶¶ 11, 27 (2003) (citing A.R.S.

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 (2003) (statute and constitution).

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 (2003); Angus Med.

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 9, (relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 13, 18 (1965) (hereafter “Restatement”)).

See, e.g., Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 9 (2003) ("The law is well established that a health care provider commits a common law battery on a patient if a medical procedure is performed without the patient's consent."); Saxena v. Goffney, 71 Cal.

See, e.g., Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 9 , (“The law is well established that a health care provider commits a common law battery on a patient if a medical procedure is performed without the patient’s consent.”); Saxena v. Goffney, 159 Cal.App.4th 316 , 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 469, 475 (App.2008); Devitre v. Orthopedic Ctr.

Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 , and we may affirm a summary judgment if it is correct for any reason, City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14

Imaging, Ltd., P.3d 435 (2003), consent is not valid when the surgeon is suffering from an undisclosed drug dependency at the time consent is given, because it effectively revokes 1 Rule 56 was revised effective January 1, 2013, but the changes were stylistic and not intended to “alter the substantive requireme