Legal Opinion

In re MH 2008-000097

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 31, 2009No. 1 CA-MH 08-0011PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant A.M. appeals the superior court’s January 24, 2008 order that she undergo involuntary mental health treatment. She contends the court order violated Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36-501(12)(a) (Supp.2008), which requires that the evaluation of a proposed mental health patient be completed by “[t]wo licensed physicians, who shall be qualified psychiatrists, if possible, or at least experienced in psychiatric matters, and who shall examine and report their findings independently.” For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 On…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  3. In Re Estate of PouserArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  5. Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Pinal County Mental Health Case Mh202400075Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API