The Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Tuesday reversing a lower court decision in *Henke v. Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc.*, a medical malpractice case that centers on the standard of care required in emergency department settings. The court's October 22, 2025 opinion, authored by Justice King, vacated a memorandum decision from the Court of Appeals Division One and remanded the case to Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings.
The case involves plaintiffs Margarita Henke and others who sued Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc., which operates as Abrazo West Campus, along with Dr. Morium Chowdhury and other medical professionals. The lawsuit originated in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2019 under Judge Joan M. Sinclair's jurisdiction.
The Arizona Supreme Court's opinion addressed critical questions about the burden of proof in medical malpractice cases involving emergency department care. Under Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-563(2), plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions must typically prove that "the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care was a proximate cause of the injury." This represents a prima facie element that plaintiffs must establish in their case.
However, the legal landscape becomes more complex when emergency department care is involved. A separate statute, A.R.S. section 12-572, provides enhanced protections for health professionals and hospitals providing treatment in emergency departments. Under this provision, these medical providers are not liable for damages unless the elements of proof contained in section 12-563 are established by "clear and convincing evidence" rather than the typical preponderance of evidence standard.
The case attracted significant attention from various stakeholder groups, as evidenced by the multiple amicus curiae briefs filed with the court. The Arizona Association for Justice and Arizona Trial Lawyers Association submitted a brief supporting the plaintiffs' position, represented by attorney Adam Studnicki of Studnicki Law Firm. On the defense side, Banner Health and other healthcare organizations filed an amicus brief through attorneys Rita Bustos and colleagues at Jones, Skelton & Hochuli. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry also weighed in with their own amicus brief, represented by attorneys Kory Langhofer and Thomas Basile of Statecraft PLLC.
The involvement of these diverse organizations underscores the broader implications of the case for Arizona's healthcare and legal communities. Healthcare systems like Banner Health have a vested interest in maintaining protective standards for emergency care, while trial lawyer associations advocate for patients' rights to seek redress for medical negligence.
The case's procedural history reflects the complexity of the legal issues involved. After the initial filing in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2019, the matter proceeded through the court system with the defendants ultimately prevailing at the trial court level. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeals Division One, which issued a memorandum decision on October 8, 2024. However, the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling now vacates that appellate decision entirely.
Justice King's opinion for the unanimous court included all seven justices: Chief Justice Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Lopez, and Justices Bolick, Beene, Montgomery, and Cruz. The unanimity of the decision suggests the court found the legal questions sufficiently clear to warrant consistent agreement among all justices.
The legal representation in the case included experienced medical malpractice attorneys on both sides. Elliot Wolfe of The Wolfe Law Firm represented the Henke plaintiffs, while the medical defendants were represented by DeeDee Armer Holden and Michael Ryan of Holden & Armer. The hospital defendants retained Jeffrey McLerran and Neil Berglund of Freeman Mathis & Gary.
The reversal and remand means the case will return to Judge Sinclair's courtroom in Maricopa County, where proceedings will continue under the guidance established by the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling. The court's decision to reverse rather than simply modify the lower court's ruling indicates significant disagreement with how the legal standards were applied in the case.
This ruling comes at a time when medical malpractice law continues to evolve, particularly regarding emergency department care. Emergency rooms face unique challenges in providing care under time-sensitive and often life-threatening conditions, and the legal protections afforded to emergency care providers reflect legislative recognition of these circumstances.
The case's resolution will likely influence how similar medical malpractice claims are evaluated in Arizona courts, particularly those involving emergency department care where the higher "clear and convincing evidence" standard applies. Healthcare providers and their insurers will be watching closely to understand the practical implications of the court's interpretation of these competing statutory standards.
The remanded proceedings in Maricopa County Superior Court will provide the next chapter in this litigation, with the parties now operating under the clarified legal framework established by Arizona's highest court.