Maricopa County Special Health Care Dist. v. Jackson, No. 1 CA-SA 25-0068 (App. Div. I, August 7, 2025) (J. Howe) https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2025/%5BFINAL%5D%20Maricopa%20v.%20Jackson%20SA%2025-0068.pdf

AA.R.S. § 48-5541 SUBJECTS A SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT TO SUIT UNDER THE ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES ACT A.R.S. § 46-455(B)/A NOTICE OF CLAIM THAT GIVES GOVERNMENT SUFFICIENT FACTS TO INVESTIGATE, ALLEGES FACTS TO SUPPORT LIABILITY AND THE AMOUNT THE CLAIM CAN BE SETTLED FOR IS ADEQUATE EVEN IF IT DOES NOT STATE THE SPECIFIC THEORY OF LIABILITY

Maricopa County created Valleywise, a “special health care district [which] is a tax levying public improvement district for all purposes of article XIII, § 7, Constitution of Arizona.” Valleywise was created to mange the hospitals and healthcare facilities owned by the county. Peggy Jackson, legal guardian to Matthew Heinreich, an intellectually disabled person, filed a notice of claim against Valleywise for gross negligence in failing to provide Heinreich with his medications and failing to recognize and treat the malignant catatonia Heinreich suffered due to the lack of medication.  Thereafter, Jackson sued Valleywise and Desert Medical Group [DMG] (the medical group actually treating Heinreich)  for medical negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Valleywise and DMG moved to dismiss alleging they were not a “person” or “enterprise” under A.R.S. § 46-455(B), the Adult Protective Services Act [APSA]  per Estate of Braden ex rel. Gabaldon v. State, 228 Ariz. 323 (2011)and based upon an alleged deficient notice of claim. The motion was granted as to DMG only. Valleywise then brought this special action. The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and denied relief.

Valleywise's argument that it is a political subdivision and not a “person” or “enterprise” under the APSA fails because A.R.S. § 48-5541clearly provides health care districts may “be sued in all courts and places and in all actions and proceedings.” Further, no where does the APSA exempt health care districts.  Such a district is essentially a business corporation that operates and manages health care facilities which is more a commercial enterprise and not inherently a governmental function.  While Estate of Braden held the State of Arizona is not an “enterprise” under the APSA, a health care district is not the State. Further, the supreme court in Estate of Braden acknowledged that the “definition of ‘enterprise' in [A.R.S.] § 46-455(Q) is not expressly limited to business entities and that the term ‘corporation' may embrace both private and public entities.”  Valleywise is an “enterprise” under the APSA.

 Valleywise's position that the notice of claim was insufficient for failing to specifically provide notice of an APSA claim also fails.

Because the claim statute“ anticipates that government entities

            will investigate claims” to determine its potential liability, the

plaintiff need provide only sufficient facts to “facilitate the

government's investigation.”. Facts are sufficient if they

“establish the basis for liability and an amount for which

the claim can be settled” such that the public entity may investigate

legal theories of liability derived from those facts, even if the plaintiff does

not explicitly state the specific theory of liability.