Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro

• Decision Date: 30 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. CV–15–0323–PR,CV–15–0323–PR
• Parties: Premier Physicians Group, PLLC, an Arizona Professional LLC, dba Premier Pain Management, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kimberly Navarro and Eddie Navarro, Wife and Husband, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

240 Ariz. 193

377 P.3d 988

Premier Physicians Group, PLLC, an Arizona Professional LLC, dba Premier Pain Management, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellant

v.Kimberly Navarro and Eddie Navarro, Wife and Husband, Defendants/Appellees.

No. CV–15–0323–PR

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed August 30, 2016

H. Lee Dove, Trevor J. Fish, (argued), Evans, Dove & Nelson, P.L.C., Mesa, Attorneys for Premier Physicians Group, PLLC dba Premier Pain Management, LLC

Joel DeCiancio (argued), Christopher Robbins, Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Kimberly and Eddie Navarro

David L. Abney, Dana R. Roberts, Knapp & Roberts, P.C., Scottsdale; and Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg, Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association

JUSTICE BOLICK authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, and JUSTICES BRUTINEL and TIMMER joined.

JUSTICE BOLICK, opinion of the Court:

¶ 1 We granted review to decide when a non-hospital health care provider may perfect a lien to secure its charges. This case turns on the statutory requirement that such a lien must be recorded “before or within thirty days after the patient has received any services relating to the injuries....” A.R.S. § 33–932(A)

. We hold that the statute requires providers to record their liens within thirty days after first providing services.

I.

¶ 2 Between June and October 2011, Premier Physicians Group (“Premier”) treated Mandy Gipson for injuries sustained in a car accident allegedly caused by Kimberly Navarro. Health care providers like Premier are statutorily entitled to record liens for their “customary charges” in treating an injured person; such liens apply to claims the injured person may have for damages related to the injury that required treatment. A.R.S. § 33–931(A)

. These liens are perfected by recording pursuant to A.R.S. § 33–932. On September 16, 2011, Premier recorded a lien to secure payment of approximately $12,000 for its services. In March 2013, the Navarros' insurer paid Gipson directly to settle her claim but did not satisfy the lien. Gipson failed to pay Premier for the services it rendered to her.

¶ 3 In January 2014, Premier sued the Navarros under A.R.S. § 33–934

to enforce the lien. The Navarros moved to dismiss the action because the lien was recorded more than thirty days after Premier first provided services to Gipson. Premier argued that § 33–932(A) allowed it to perfect the lien within thirty days after services were last provided. Agreeing with the Navarros' statutory interpretation, the trial court dismissed the complaint.

¶ 4 The court of appeals reversed, interpreting § 33–932

as allowing health care providers to record liens within thirty days after the final service but reaching back only to charges incurred within the thirty days before the lien was recorded. Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro , 238 Ariz. 156, 357 P.3d 840 (App.2015). The court also granted attorney fees to Premier as the prevailing party on appeal under A.R.S. §§ 33–934(B), 12–341. Id. at 159 ¶ 11, 357 P.3d at 843. The Navarros filed a petition for review as to the court of appeals' statutory interpretation and the attorney fees award.

¶ 5 We granted review because the recording requirement for perfecting health care provider liens is a legal question with statewide significance. See Blankenbaker v. Jonovich , 205 Ariz. 383, 385 ¶ 7, 71 P.3d 910, 912 (2003)

. We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12–120.24.

II.

¶ 6 The Court reviews orders granting a motion to dismiss de novo. Coleman v. City of Mesa , 230 Ariz. 352, 355 ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 863, 866 (2012)

. We also review statutory interpretation issues de novo.

State v. Hansen , 215 Ariz. 287, 289 ¶ 6, 160 P.3d 166, 168 (2007)

.

¶ 7 The statutes at issue “extend to health care providers a remedy not available under the common law—the ability to enforce a lien against those liable to the patient for damages in order to secure the providers' customary charges for care and treatment of an injured person.” Blankenbaker , 205 Ariz. at 388 ¶ 22, 71 P.3d at 915

. Before 1988, such liens were available only to hospitals; that year, they were extended to non-hospital health care providers through A.R.S. §§ 33–931, –932. 1988 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 298, §§ 2, 3 (2d Reg. Sess.). We refer to those liens collectively as “medical liens,” but there are important distinctions between hospital and non-hospital health care provider liens that inform our statutory interpretation.

¶ 8 To perfect a medical lien, a health care provider must strictly comply with statutory recording requirements. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. , 166 Ariz. 514, 517, 803 P.2d 925, 928 (App.1990)

(“Although Arizona lien statutes are remedial and are to be liberally construed, their provisions must be strictly followed.”). Those requirements are set forth in § 33–932(A) :

In order to perfect a lien granted by § 33–931

, the executive officer, licensed health care provider or agent of a health care provider shall record, before or within thirty days after the patient has received any services relating to the injuries, except a hospital which shall record within thirty days after the patient is discharged, in the office of the recorder in the county in which the health care provider is located a verified statement in writing setting forth all of the following:

1. The name and address of the patient as they appear on the records of the health care provider.

2. The name and location of the health care provider.

3. The name and address of the executive officer or agent of the health care provider, if any.

4. The dates or range of dates of services received by the patient from the health care provider.

5. The amount claimed due for health care.

6. For health care providers other than hospitals or ambulance services, to the best of the claimant's knowledge, the names and addresses of all persons, firms or corporations and their insurance carriers claimed by the injured person or the injured person's representative to be liable for damages arising from the injuries for which the person received health care.

¶ 9 We interpret statutes “to give effect to the legislature's intent.” Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 212 Ariz. 255, 257 ¶ 7, 130 P.3d 530, 532 (2006)

. A statute's plain language best indicates legislative intent, and when the language is clear, we apply it unless an absurd or unconstitutional result would follow. See, e.g. , Sell v. Gama , 231 Ariz. 323, 327 ¶ 16, 295 P.3d 421, 425 (2013). Ambiguity arises when the language is reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations. Lewis v. Debord , 238 Ariz. 28, 30–31 ¶ 8, 356 P.3d 314, 316–17 (2015). When a statute is ambiguous, we determine its meaning by considering secondary factors, such as the statute's context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose. See

Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare , 231 Ariz. 379, 383 ¶ 8, 296 P.3d 42, 46 (2013). When possible, we seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions. See, e.g. , State v. Bowsher , 225 Ariz. 586, 589 ¶ 14, 242 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2010).

¶ 10 The parties both argue that the plain meaning of the words “within thirty days after the patient has received any services” in § 33–932(A)

supports their respective readings. But because a patient “has received any services” (that is, “some” services) on both the first day of services and last, that language in isolation lends itself to two reasonable interpretations: the provider must record the lien within thirty days after the patient has first received services or it must record the lien within thirty days after the patient last received services.

¶ 11 The court of appeals agreed with the Navarros that reading § 33–932(A)

as permitting a non-hospital provider to record a lien within thirty days after the provider last provides services eliminates the statutory distinction between non-hospital health care providers and hospitals, which alone are allowed to perfect liens under § 33–932(A)

“within 30 days after it has discharged its patient.” Premier , 238 Ariz. at 157–58 ¶ 6, 357 P.3d at 841–42. But the court also disagreed with the Navarros' construction because it inserts “an additional requirement into the statute, effectively changing it to require a non-hospital health care provider to record a lien within 30 days after the patient first receives any services relating to the injuries.” Id. at 158 ¶ 7, 357 P.3d at 842.

¶ 12 Instead, the court interpreted the statute to provide a rolling deadline, in which a non-hospital health care provider may record a lien within thirty days following any services between the first and last, but only for charges incurred within thirty days before the lien was recorded and any subsequent charges. Id. at 159 ¶ 9, 357 P.3d at 843

. “This construction,” the court concluded, “maintains the distinction between hospitals and non-hospital health care providers” and promotes the lien statutes' purpose to “lessen the burden on hospitals and other medical providers imposed by non-paying accident cases.” Id. (quoting Blankenbaker , 205 Ariz. at 387 ¶ 19, 71 P.3d at 914 ). Under this holding, Premier could recover charges beginning thirty days prior to recording the lien but not before then.

¶ 13 We find no support in the statutory language for the court of appeals' conclusion that the statute creates such a rolling deadline. Section 33–932(A)

establishes specific triggering events. For hospitals, it is “within thirty days after the patient is discharged,” which establishes a time certain. For non-hospital health care providers, it is “before or within thirty days after the patient has received any services.” Given the clear triggering event established for...