Estate of Desela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BALES, Justice.
¶ 1 The issue is whether an action to recover medical expenses for injuries to a child is time-barred. Revising Arizona’s common law rule, we hold that both the minor and the minor’s parents are entitled to recover premajority medical expenses, but double recovery is not permitted. Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington, 60 Ariz. 354, 137 P.2d 381 (1943), and S.A Gerrard Co. v. Couch, 43 Ariz. 57, 29 P.2d 151 (1934), are overruled insofar as they hold that the right to recover belongs solely to the parents. Because the minor’s action to recover medical…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1989
- Boley v. KnowlesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
- HOWARD FRANK, MD, PC v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- Scott County School District One v. Asher Ex Rel. McClureIndiana Supreme Court · 1975
- Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. HarringtonArizona Supreme Court · 1943
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Young v. BeckArizona Supreme Court · 2011
- Weitz Co. v. HethArizona Supreme Court · 2014
- Sandra Howell v. John HowellArizona Supreme Court · 2015
- Francis RUDNICKI and Pamela Rudnicki, as parents, guardians and next friends of Alexander Rudnicki, a minor child v. Peter BIANCO, D.O.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2021
- State of Arizona v. Nicolas LuvianoArizona Supreme Court · 2023
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.