Arojojoye v. Allen, No. CV-25-0119-PR (August 21, 12026) (J. Montgomery) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/CV250119PR.pdf?ver=r9R8kgWMMvYGjzfz8x7-0w%3d%3d

TO DETERMINE IF EXPERT IS QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY FOR PLAINTIFF ON STANDARD OF CARE IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE TRIAL COURT MUST FIRST DETERMINE THE PARTICULAR CARE OR TREATMENT ALLEGED TO BE NEGLIGENT THEN WHETHER THAT CARE FALLS WITHIN THE SPECIALITY OF THE EXPERT

Plaintiffs' decedent died of an infection following treatment for a pressure ulcer. Plaintiffs sued the treating doctor for negligent care. Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, 231 Ariz. 379, 384 (2013) interpreted A.R.S. § 12-563 to require plaintiffs' expert in a medical negligence must practice in the same specialty as the defendant doctor. Here plaintiffs' expert was board certified in internal medicine. Defendant moved for summary judgment claiming he was a certified wound care specialist and plaintiffs' expert was required to also be certified as a wound care specialist.  Plaintiffs argued that their theory of negligence was not wound care but rather the failure to recognize, evaluate and treat the developing systemic infection, not wound care, and their expert was duly qualified to address those issues. 

The Maricopa County Superior Court denied defendant's motion finding the claimed negligence was outside the specialty of wound care and also found the defendant doctor was appropriately certified in the specialty of wound care.  Defendant doctor then brought this special action. The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and found the treatment at issue was wound care and that the defendant was a wound care specialist. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and vacated and remanded the trial court's ruling.

When a defendant doctor claims to be a specialist the trial court must first determine if the alleged malpractice falls within the specialty and if so the plaintiffs' expert must share that specialty. If the trial court determines the defendant is board certified in the specialty in question, the plaintiffs' expert must also be board certified in that specialty. Here, while the trial court found that the alleged negligence at issue was not wound care and denied the motion for summary judgment, it failed to adequately state the reasons for its ruling and failed to clarify that wound care was not at issue in any way. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine if the claim indeed falls solely within the area of internal medicine and not wound care. If the trial court determines the alleged negligence involves both internal medicine and wound care then plaintiffs'' expert must hold the specialty of wound care to qualify as an expert on the standard of care here.

Under Baker, in order for the defendant doctor to qualify as a specialist, he or she must demonstrate a majority of their time is spent practicing or teaching in that specialty and demonstrate the certification meets this criteria:

(1) it is a voluntary process administered by an organization that recognizes certain practice areas of a branch of medicine or surgery;

(2) it requires graduation from an accredited medical school;

(3) it involves “successful completion of residency or other training,” reflecting distinct training and experience; and

(4) it requires an exam for certification and “continuing education and practice requirements.”

 Other indicators of a qualifying board certification include the conferral of “certain advantages such as hospital privileges, lower malpractice insurance rates, and higher salaries.” 

Not part of the determination is whether the certification is recognized by the ABMS.  Nor are a physician's motives for obtaining certification relevant.”