Cited by

The legislature may properly enact statutory procedures that supplement, rather than conflict with, rules this Court has promulgated, but “in the event of irreconcilable conflict between a procedural statute and a rule, the rule prevails.” –89 ¶ 8 (2009); accord State 5 DUFF V. HON.

at 49, ¶ 23; ¶ 33 4 CURTIS v. BANNER, et al. Decision of the Court (2009)

¶7 Typically, the standard of care “must be established by expert medical testimony.” ¶ 33 (2009); Ryan, 228 Ariz. at 49, ¶ 23; (“Evidence as to what constitutes the proper degree of skill .

¶ 8 (2009) (citation omitted); ¶ 146 (2014) (acknowledging that court procedures emanate from court rules and caselaw).

¶ 7 (2009) (quoting Ariz. Const. art. 3, art. 6, § 5(5).

§ 12–2603(B)(3)–(4); ¶ 33 (2009), and is only relieved of this obligation “when negligence is so clearly apparent that a layman would recognize it.” Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., ¶ 13 (App. 2008), disapproved on other grounds by Rasor v. Nw.

Seisinger v. Siebel , , ¶ 8

Brnovich v. City of Tucson , , ¶ 27, (quoting Seisinger v. Siebel , , ¶ 8, ).

See Seisinger v. Siebel , , ¶ 7, (Arizona Constitution vests supreme court with power "to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court"; rules of evidence " 'generally ...

Cf. Seisinger v. Siebel , , ¶¶ 33-35, (discussing history of requirements for standard-of-care experts in medical malpractice cases).

¶ 26 (2009) (regarding substantive law, “[t]he legislature has plenary power to deal with any topic unless otherwise restrained by the Constitution”); ¶ 5 (2001) (“Defining crimes and fixing punishments are functions of the legislature.”).

in the event of irreconcilable conflict between a procedural statute and a rule, the rule prevails.” , 89 ¶ 8

¶29 The Arizona Constitution vests our supreme court with the “[p]ower to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(5); ¶ 7 (2009).

of Adjustment of City of Phx., ¶¶ 7-8, -87 (2009).

¶ 26 (2009) (noting court-promulgated rule cannot limit a substantive statute).

92 ¶ 26, (noting court-promulgated rule cannot limit a substantive statute).

¶ 26, Hansen, 215 Ariz. at 289, ¶ 9, 160 P.3d at 168 (“[W]hen a statute and rule conflict, we traditionally inquire into whether the matter regulated can be characterized as substantive or procedural, the former being the legislature’s prerogative and the latter the province of this Cour

The Arizona Supreme Court has previously interpreted these statutes, noting that “[i]n medical malpractice actions, as in all negligence actions, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.” ¶ 32