Cited by

As HonorHealth notes, the Arizona Supreme Court recognizes that “the proper interpretation of the health care provider lien statutes is a matter of statewide importance.” ¶ 7 (2003); see Ariz. R.P.

BOSTWICK/TUCSON MEDICAL CENTER Opinion of the Court against those liable to the patient for damages in order to secure the providers’ customary charges for care and treatment of an injured person.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 7 (2016) ( ¶ 22 (2003)).

¶ 17 (2003); Maricopa Cnty.

¶¶ 17–18 (2003) (examining health care liens outside of the Medicaid context).

¶ 22, (noting that “the lien statutes extend to health care providers .

When a statutory scheme “creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.” ¶ 18 (2003).

As our supreme court has explained, the statutes were designed “to lessen the burden on hospitals and other medical providers imposed by non-paying accident cases.” ¶ 19 , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Action Marine, 218 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 10 , 181 P.3d at 190 (court considers purpose of statute in ascertaining legislative intent).

Accord and satisfaction ¶ 14 “In Arizona, a lien ‘is a charge or encumbrance upon property to secure the payment or performance of a debt, duty, or other obligation.’” ¶ 10 , (citation omitted) , 387 n. 7, ¶ 18, , 914 n. 7 (2003).

¶ 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 , ).

The statement in Patrick is consistent with the more general principle that “‘[w]hen a statute creates a right and also creates a remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.’” (“When, as here, a statute ‘creates a right and also provides a complete and valid remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.’”)

Id.; -88, ¶ 19 , -15 (2003).

§§ 20-1072, 33-931, 33-934; ¶¶ 1, 19, 915 (2003) (holding that § 33-934 “allows an action to enforce a health care provider lien only against those liable to an injured person, not against the injured person,” but also stating “[t]he provider can always proceed, even in the absence of a lien, against the patient for the value

“When a statute creates a right and also creates a remedy for the right created, the remedy thereby given is exclusive.”

¶ 1 Recently, our supreme court held that Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 33-934 (2000) authorizes a health care provider to enforce its lien “only against those liable to an injured person.” , at ¶ 1 (2003).