Cited by

¶ 5 (2002) (recognizing that “[t]he [L]egislature created [a] cause of action” in a statute which uses the phrase “may file an action”); Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 17 (2017) (same).

¶29 The underlying public policy of APSA is to provide “a broad remedial cause of action against caregivers who, by means of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, endanger the life or health of a vulnerable adult.” Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 15 (2017); see also A.R.S.

But the application of the doctrine is limited to “instances in which the [L]egislature has considered and declined to reject the relevant judicial interpretation.” Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 24 (2017) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Sw.

“The legislature enacted APSA to protect vulnerable adults, and to further this purpose, it created a broad remedial cause of action.” Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson, AZ, LLC, ¶ 15 (2017).

Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 10 (2017).

¶23 At issue here is APSA’s “broad remedial cause of action against caregivers who, by means of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, endanger the life or health of a vulnerable adult.” See Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 22 (2017).

Although the APSA creates "broad protective provisions," Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 16 (2017), we cannot ignore the statute's express requirements, ¶ 11 (2003) ("The court must give effect to each word of the statute."); Canon Sch.

See, e.g., Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶¶ 17, 19 (2017).

Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 10 (2017).

As we recognized recently, “The doctrine of legislative acquiescence is limited to instances in which the legislature has considered and declined to reject the relevant judicial interpretation.” ¶ 24 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sw.

See Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 10 (2017).

Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson AZ, LLC, ¶ 10 (2017); State ex rel.