Legal Opinion

Governale v. Lieberman

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 10, 2011No. 1 CA-CV 10-0195PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WEISBERG, Judge.

¶ 1 Phillip Governale appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Defendants Daniel Lieberman, M.D., and the Arizona Center for Neurosurgery, Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”). Governale argues that the superior court erred in failing to find that Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2604 (Supp. 2009) violates the Arizona Constitution by its restriction upon Governale’s choice of an expert witness in a medical malpractice case. We disagree and hold that the statute is constitutional and therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In February 2008, Governale filed a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kenyon v. HammerArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Eastin v. BroomfieldArizona Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's FoundationArizona Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Seisinger v. SiebelArizona Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Robert Baker v. University Physicians HealthcareArizona Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Fisher v. EdgertonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  3. State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy LoweryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  4. Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Board of RegentsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  5. Franklin v. ClemettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API