Arizona’s top court has ruled that patients can sue hospitals and healthcare providers for ordinary negligence related to COVID-19 care, reversing a pandemic-era law that gave broad immunity to the medical industry. This landmark decision, which overturns key legal protections enacted in 2021, will reshape how malpractice claims tied to pandemic treatment are handled throughout the state.
High Court Voids Immunity Law
The Arizona Supreme Court found that Arizona Revised Statute § 12-516, granting broad immunity during a public health emergency, violated the state constitution’s guarantee that anyone injured by another has the right to seek legal remedy. The justices held that limiting legal claims to only cases of “gross negligence” or willful misconduct put an insurmountable barrier in the way of patients harmed by routine but avoidable medical mistakes.
Justice James Beene, writing for the majority, said that legislation runs afoul of a provision of the Arizona Constitution which says “the right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated.” And that language, he said, is “unequivocal.”
Details of the Roebuck Case
The pivotal case, Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic, involved a lawsuit from a patient who suffered injuries during COVID-era care and claimed ordinary negligence.
Robin Roebuck was hospitalized with pneumonia and received supplemental oxygen, with an electrocardiogram showing his heart was functioning well, leading doctors to focus treatment on managing COVID-19. The next day, a doctor ordered an arterial blood gas test, a more precise measure of oxygen levels in the blood, which revealed critically low oxygen. However, Roebuck later developed complications from this test, requiring surgery on his right hand, forearm, and wrist, which left him with reduced strength, limited use, and significant scarring.
Roebuck filed a lawsuit claiming the arterial blood gas test was negligently performed. However, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rodrick Coffey dismissed the case, citing a 2021 law made retroactive to March 2020 that limits COVID-related medical lawsuits to cases alleging gross negligence—a much higher burden of proof than ordinary negligence. Because Roebuck’s claim was based on ordinary negligence, the court ruled the lawsuit could not proceed under the immunity statute.
Ultimately, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic that this statute violated the Arizona Constitution’s anti-abrogation clause. The court held that ordinary negligence claims could not be completely barred during a declared public health emergency and found that gross negligence is not a reasonable alternative legal standard to ordinary negligence. This landmark decision restored patients’ rights to sue for ordinary negligence in COVID-related medical care, reversing the trial court’s dismissal and allowing such cases to move forward.
The Supreme Court decision means this and similar cases can proceed, as plaintiffs are no longer required to prove an unusually high standard of misconduct. The ruling restores the traditional negligence threshold for medical malpractice lawsuits, enabling a broader set of cases to reach trial.
Reactions From Stakeholders
The ruling has drawn strong reactions on both sides. Healthcare organizations warn that the decision places new burdens on those who provided care under challenging and rapidly changing pandemic conditions, while patient advocates argue that constitutional rights to recovery should not be suspended during a crisis. Legal experts expect the number of negligence claims against hospitals and clinics for COVID-era care will rise as a result of the decision.
Where legislators erred, Beene said, was in completely removing the right of those harmed by ordinary negligence, effectively leaving them with no legal recourse whatsoever. “The statute does more than simply make it more difficult for an ordinary negligence plaintiff to prevail under these circumstances,” he wrote.
Looking Ahead
By voiding pandemic liability shield laws, the Arizona Supreme Court has set a precedent that could influence similar statutes elsewhere. The ruling affirms that constitutional protections for injured patients remain intact, even in the face of public health emergencies.
