The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded a lower court decision in *Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic* on Sept. 12, 2025, in a closely watched medical malpractice case that drew significant attention from healthcare organizations and legal groups across the state.
The high court's ruling overturns a decision by the Court of Appeals Division One and sends the case back to Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings. The original case was heard by Judge Rodrick J. Coffey in the Superior Court.
Robin Roebuck brought the lawsuit against Mayo Clinic and multiple affiliated entities, including Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Hospital, and individual healthcare providers Nicole Secrest and Robert Scott. The case originated in 2021 and has worked its way through the Arizona court system over the past four years.
The Supreme Court's decision partially vacated the Court of Appeals opinion from 2023, which was reported at 256 Ariz. 161. The specific legal issues and facts underlying the dispute were not detailed in the court filing, but the case attracted substantial interest from major stakeholders in Arizona's healthcare and legal communities.
The level of attention the case received is evident from the numerous amicus curiae briefs filed by prominent organizations on both sides of the healthcare debate. Medical associations and healthcare organizations that filed briefs supporting Mayo Clinic included the American Medical Association, Arizona Medical Association, Phoenix Children's Hospital, HonorHealth, and Mutual Insurance Company of Arizona.
The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association also participated as an amicus curiae, as did the Health System Alliance of Arizona and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. These organizations typically file amicus briefs in cases they believe could set important precedents affecting healthcare providers' legal exposure or operational standards.
On the other side, the Arizona Association for Justice and Arizona Trial Lawyers Association filed amicus briefs supporting Roebuck's position. These organizations represent attorneys who handle personal injury and medical malpractice cases and often advocate for broader patient rights and healthcare accountability.
The State of Arizona also participated in the proceedings, represented by attorneys from the Office of the Attorney General including Joshua D. Bendor and Hayleigh S. Crawford.
Robert M. Gregory of the Law Office of Robert M. Gregory in Gilbert represented Roebuck throughout the appeal process and argued before the Supreme Court. Mayo Clinic and the other defendants were represented by a team of attorneys from multiple firms, including Rita J. Bustos of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli in Phoenix and Vincent J. Montell of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer in Scottsdale.
Justice Beene authored the majority opinion for the court, with Chief Justice Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Lopez and Justice Montgomery joining the decision. Justice Bolick issued a partial dissent, disagreeing with portions of the majority's reasoning and the ultimate judgment while concurring with other aspects of the decision.
The case represents a significant development in Arizona medical malpractice law, given the high-profile nature of the defendant and the extensive amicus participation. Mayo Clinic is one of the nation's most prestigious healthcare systems, operating major facilities in Arizona including its Scottsdale campus.
Medical malpractice cases involving large healthcare systems often turn on complex questions of standard of care, institutional liability, and the scope of damages available to patients who suffer injuries during treatment. The involvement of multiple Mayo Clinic entities suggests the case may have involved questions about corporate structure and liability allocation within integrated healthcare systems.
The reversal and remand means the case will return to the trial court level, where proceedings will continue under the guidance established by the Supreme Court's ruling. Depending on the specific holdings in the opinion, this could involve a new trial, additional discovery, or other proceedings as directed by the high court.
For Mayo Clinic and other healthcare providers in Arizona, the decision may establish new precedents regarding their legal obligations or exposure in malpractice cases. The extensive amicus participation suggests industry observers viewed the case as potentially setting important precedents for future litigation.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension in medical malpractice law between protecting patient rights to seek redress for medical injuries and maintaining reasonable limitations on healthcare provider liability that could affect the availability and cost of medical care.
As the case returns to the lower court, both sides will need to navigate the proceedings under whatever new legal framework the Supreme Court established in its opinion. The ultimate resolution of Roebuck's claims against Mayo Clinic will depend on how the case develops during the remand proceedings ordered by the state's highest court.