Eastin v. Broomfield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statute abolishing collateral source rule in medical malpractice does not unconstitutionally limit recovery
• holding that statute abolishing collateral source rule in medical malpractice does not unconstitutionally limit recovery
• holding constitutional Arizona’s statute which requires that upon the filing of a medical malpractice action, the matter must be referred to a medical liability review panel
• holding constitutional Arizona's statute which requires that upon the filing of a medical malpractice action, the matter must be referred to a medical liability review panel
• observing that abrogation of the collateral source rule did not deprive the medical malpractice claimant of any property interest accorded protection by the due process clause of the United States Constitution
• statutory requirement that malpractice claims be submitted to medical liability review panel prior to court action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).