Opinion ID: 867605
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legislative considerations

Text: ¶ 27 The legislature, we believe, is quite familiar with the distinction between the date of injury and the date of accrual of a cause of action. Former A.R.S. § 12-564(A) provided that the cause of action for malpractice must be brought within two years of the date of injury. In Kenyon, we held this statute unconstitutional insofar as it discriminated against those with claims against licensed health care providers as distinguished from all other malpractice claims, and which also discriminate internally between classes of medical malpractice claimants.... 142 Ariz. at 83, 688 P.2d at 975. The special medical malpractice limitation statute therefore violated Arizona's equal protection clausearticle II, § 13of the Arizona Constitution. See id. at 87, 688 P.2d at 979. Following the Kenyon decision, and evidently not wishing to give lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers, and other professionals the benefit of a date-of-injury trigger, the legislature returned to the accrual rule. Thus, the statute governing the present case provides that negligence actions must be filed within two years from the date of accrual, specifically including medical malpractice actions. A.R.S. § 12-542(A)(1). This, of course, takes us back to the accrual rule as formulated in Mayer and approved in Kenyon. See ante ¶ 17.