Arizona Supreme Court: Francisco, et al. v. Affiliated Urologists Ltd, et al.
Case No. CV-23-0152-PR Filed Date: August 16, 2024
ISSUES:
- Whether FDA black box warnings can establish the standard of care in medical malpractice cases without expert testimony.
- Whether the Franciscos’ claim is a medical malpractice claim subject to expert testimony requirements under A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604.
- Whether A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604 violate the anti-abrogation clause of Arizona’s Constitution as applied to the Franciscos.
DECISION:
- The court held that FDA black box warnings cannot substitute for expert testimony to establish the standard of care in this case.
- The court determined that the Franciscos’ claim is a medical malpractice claim subject to the expert testimony requirements.
- The court concluded that A.R.S. §§ 12-2603 and 12-2604 do not violate the anti-abrogation clause as applied to the Franciscos.
Dissent/Concurrence:
Justice Bolick concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the failure to follow the black box warning under the facts presented should be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligent failure to warn, without requiring expert testimony.
Synopsis:
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care in medical malpractice cases, even when FDA black box warnings are present. The court emphasized that prescribing medication involves complex medical judgments that are beyond the common knowledge of laypeople.
Outcome of the Case:
The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the Franciscos’ claim for failure to provide a preliminary expert opinion affidavit as required by A.R.S. § 12-2603.