Cited by

The primary aim of statutory interpretation is “to give effect to legislative intent.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) ( ¶ 7 (2013)).

The best indication of legislative intent is a statute’s plain language, which, when clear, “we apply [] unless an absurd or unconstitutional result would follow.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10 (2008); Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

§ 33-932(A)’s distinction between hospital and non-hospital providers for timing purposes, and to the Arizona Supreme Court’s discussion of that distinction in Premier Physicians Group, ¶ 17 (2016).

Sys., ¶ 35 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016)).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016).

.” (quoting Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016))).

Sys., ¶ 35 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016)).

Premier Physicians Grp., -95, ¶ 6 (2016) (interpreting statutes).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) (explaining that courts “seek to .

Premier Physicians Grp., –95, ¶ 6 (2016).

See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

We seek “to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions.” ¶ 35 (2020) (quoting Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016)).

See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016); Grosvenor Holdings, L.C.

See, e.g., Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016); ¶ 15 (2016); Rasor v. Northwest Hosp., LLC, ¶ 20 (2017).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

2 “When possible, we seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions.” Premier Physicians Grp.

¶ 14 (2020); Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016).

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)).

¶20 As previously indicated, a statute’s plain language is the best indicator of legislative intent, Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016), and “when the legislature has specifically included a term in some places within a statute and excluded it in other places, courts will not read that term into the sections from which it was excluded,” Arpaio v. Citizen Publ’g Co., ¶ 9 (App. 2008) (quoting State v. Gonzales, 206 Ari

When interpreting a statute, we aim “to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) ( ¶ 7 (2006)).

v. Hegyi, ¶ 6 (2014), which is best expressed by the statute’s plain language, Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016).