NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

LUCA BRANUM,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

UNITED HEALTHCARE COMMUNITY PLAN, 

Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 20-0096 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2018-054151

The Honorable Lisa Daniel Flores, Judge, Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Luca Branum

Plaintiff/Appellant

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A., Phoenix

By Mark C. Dangerfield, Kevin E. O’Malley

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

FILED 12-17-2020
BRANUM v. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff Luca Branum appeals the superior court’s entry of 

judgment for defendant United Healthcare Community Plan (United). 

Because Branum has shown no error, the judgment is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Branum is the mother of C.B., who receives medical services 

through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), 

including Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) services. C.B. is an 

enrolled member of United, an AHCCCS-approved contractor, which 

subsidizes the services C.B. receives from ALTCS.

¶3 In April 2014, United assessed C.B. and approved 15 hours of 

weekly attendant care services. In May 2014, United confirmed C.B. was 

approved to receive 15 hours of weekly services and asked Branum if the 

15 hours “would work for [Branum] and” C.B. In response, Branum 

answered it would, “as long as we’re able to choose the hours during the 

week.” Meanwhile, United sent a September 15, 2014 Notice of Action 

stating it would pay for 15 hours of weekly services. The Notice of Action 

stated if Branum was “not happy with this decision,” she could appeal over 

the phone or in writing but needed to do so by November 14, 2014 (within 

60 days). Branum did not timely appeal that decision. As a result, C.B. then 

received 15 hours of weekly services for many months.1

¶4 In October 2018, Branum filed this complaint in superior 

court. Branum’s complaint alleged various failures by United, including

wrongfully denying various changes in services for C.B. (including the 

number of weekly hours of services). United moved to dismiss, arguing 

1 In August 2015, Branum sought to increase the weekly services for C.B.

After administrative proceedings, Branum obtained a December 2016 

AHCCCS Decision that C.B. was entitled to 55 hours of weekly services 

retroactive to August 2015. That determination is not at issue here.
BRANUM v. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Decision of the Court

3

Branum failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The court granted 

that motion in part, dismissing all claims except those arising from services 

for C.B. “for 2014 and 2015.” As to the claims for 2014 and 2015, the court

stated there was insufficient evidence to show Branum “was given the 

opportunity to pursue remedies through an administrative review 

process.” 

¶5 After discovery, United moved for summary judgment on the 

remaining claims, again arguing Branum failed to exhaust her

administrative remedies because she failed to follow the appeal procedures 

established by AHCCCS. United also argued Branum’s claims were timebarred. The court granted United’s motion for summary judgment, finding

there was no factual dispute that:

during the period of time from May 2014 to July 

2015:

1) Plaintiff received an e-mail dated May 15, 

2014, which stated that Defendant had 

approved 15 hours per week of attendant care 

services for her son; Plaintiff responded that 15 

hours “would work.”

2) Plaintiff received a September 15, 2014 

“Notice of Action” which stated that Defendant 

would provide her son 15 hours per week of 

attendant care service, and that if she were “not 

happy” she had 60 days to appeal the decision. 

She did not appeal.

3) On July 30, 2014, November 12, 2014, 

February 27, 2015 and June 5, 2015, Plaintiff 

signed forms stating that her son’s needs were 

being met and she was satisfied with the service 

provided.

4) Plaintiff did not offer any evidence that, prior 

to August 2015, she asked Defendant to increase 

the 15 hours per week of attendant care hours 

for her son.

Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her 

administrative remedies, the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction to consider this matter.
BRANUM v. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Decision of the Court

4

The court also found Branum’s claims were time-barred because they were 

submitted more than six months after the date the services were rendered. 

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 36-2904(G) (2020).2 The court also found 

Branum’s claims, while appearing in the complaint to be contract claims, 

were statutory claims given the program providing services to C.B. was 

created by statute. Accordingly, the court concluded, Branum’s claims were 

subject to a one-year statute of limitations and were untimely. See A.R.S. § 

12-541(5). 

¶6 After entry of a final judgment, Branum appealed. This court 

has jurisdiction over Branum’s timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 

9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and 

-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. Branum’s Complaint Was Not Timely.

¶7 The superior court properly found Branum’s complaint 

asserted statutory claims, because AHCCCS (and thus any possible liability 

for United) was created by the Arizona Legislature in A.R.S. Title 36, 

Chapter 29. As a result, the court properly found her claims were subject to 

a one-year statute of limitations. A.R.S. § 12-541(5). Under that one-year 

limitations period, the court found Branum’s claims (which challenged 2014 

and 2015 issues) were time-barred because her complaint was not filed until 

2018.

¶8 Apart from the one-year limitations period, A.R.S. section 36-

2904(G) specifically prohibits United from paying “claims for system 

covered services that are initially submitted more than six months after the 

date of the service for which payment is claimed.” Branum did not dispute 

the applicability of these statutes, nor does she dispute their applicability 

on appeal. Accordingly, the court properly found Branum’s claims were not 

timely.

II. The Superior Court Properly Found Branum Failed To Exhaust 

Her Administrative Remedies.

¶9 Summary judgment is proper where “the moving party 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
BRANUM v. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Decision of the Court

5

56(a). Here, United argued Branum’s claims failed because she did not

exhaust her administrative remedies. “[L]itigants may not seek ‘judicial 

relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed 

administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Moulton v. Napolitano, 205 

Ariz. 506, 511 ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (citing cases). When a litigant has failed to 

exhaust administrative remedies, the action should be dismissed. See Minor 

v. Cochise Cty., 125 Ariz. 170, 172 (1980). Exhaustion is required when an 

administrative agency has original jurisdiction over the subject matter; in 

other words, “whether the agency is specifically empowered to act by the 

Legislature.” Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 511 ¶ 10 (quotations omitted). As 

applicable here, claims by AHCCCS participants “must first be presented 

to and determined by AHCCCS.” St. Mary’s Hosp. and Health Ctr. v. State of 

Arizona, 150 Ariz. 8, 9 (App. 1986). 

¶10 Branum does not dispute that the record before the superior 

court showed United sent a Notice of Action on September 15, 2014

approving 15 hours of weekly services and stating she had 60 days to 

challenge that notice if she wished to do so. The record further shows that 

Branum did not dispute that notice within 60 days (November 14, 2014). See 

Ariz. Admin. Code R9-34-209. Because she failed to do so, she failed to 

exhaust her administrative remedies and, as a result, could not press those 

claims in superior court. Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 511 ¶ 9. Thus, the superior 

court did not err in dismissing Branum’s claims.

CONCLUSION

¶11 The judgment dismissing Branum’s claims is affirmed.