Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists

Summary

The court held that determining whether expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care in a medical-malpractice action is a legal question reviewed de novo. A claim alleging that a physician failed to disclose medication risks is a medical-malpractice claim, and an FDA black-box warning cannot independently establish the professional standard of care when the alleged duty to warn requires medical judgment. The court also held that the statutory expert-affidavit requirements did not violate Arizona’s anti-abrogation clause as applied because the record did not show that the plaintiffs lacked reasonable alternatives for pursuing their claim.