Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08207/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darren Lizer
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darren Lizer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-8201-PCT-JAT (Lead)

CV 11-8207-PCT-JAT (Cons)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Summary

judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

56(a). Accordingly, summary judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322 (1986).

This case arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Doc. 28 at 3. Claims under the

Federal Tort Claims Act are governed by the substantive law of the state where the tort was

allegedly committed; in this case Arizona. Id. at 3-4; Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1,

8-10 (9th Cir. 1962); Louie v. United States, 776 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir 1985). Here, Plaintiff

alleges medical malpractice based on care he received at Fort Defiance Indian Hospital. Doc.

1-1 at 17.

Case 3:11-cv-08207-JAT Document 30 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Under Arizona law, to prove a medical malpractice claim, Plaintiff must present

evidence that the medical provider’s care fell below the established standard of care. Doc.

28 at 4; A.R.S. § 12-563; Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center, 755 P.2d 1180, 1182-83 (Ariz.

App. 1988). A physician’s deviation from the standard of care must be shown by expert

medical testimony unless such negligence, “is so grossly apparent that a layman would have

no difficulty in recognizing it.” Pendleton v. Cilley, 574 P.2d 1303, 1305 (Ariz. 1978).

Here, Plaintiff failed to disclose any expert opinions by the Court’s Rule 16

Scheduling Order deadline. Doc. 28 at 2. Thus, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof

in this case and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment unless the negligence alleged in

this case is so obvious that a layman would easily recognize it. Pendleton, 574 P.2d at 1305.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant committed medical malpractice:

a. In negligently failing to have appropriate diagnostic testing

performed;

b. In negligently failing to make a timely diagnoses of Mr. Lizer’s

condition;

c. In negligently prescribing antibiotics and other prescriptions to

Mr. Lizer known to cause Stevens Johnson Syndrome;

d. In negligently failing to recognize Mr. Lizer’s increased risks to

Stevens Johnson Syndrome because of his HIV;

e. In negligently discharging Mr. Lizer from the hospital on two

separate occasions without a proper diagnosis;

f. In negligently failing to timely transfer Mr. Lizer to a health

care facility capable of treating his condition.

g. In negligently failing to give Mr. Lizer proper medical care;

h. In ignoring symptoms and indications that Mr. Lizer had a life

threatening condition; and 

i. In negligently and carelessly failing to measure up to the

requisite standards of care and skill required and observed in the

field of medicine, and in further particulars presently unknown

to plaintiff, but which are verily believed and alleged will be

disclosed during discovery in the course of the litigation.

Doc. 1-1 at 19-20.

The Court finds that these allegations, even if true, would require expert medical

testimony to establish the standard of care and any breach of that standard of care. In other

words, none of these alleged facts would amount to obvious negligence to a layman. Thus,

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment due to Plaintiff failing to disclosure a medical

expert.

Case 3:11-cv-08207-JAT Document 30 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28) is

granted; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against

Plaintiff in both the lead case and the consolidated case.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2013.

Case 3:11-cv-08207-JAT Document 30 Filed 03/19/13 Page 3 of 3