Arizona Court of Appeals Examines Service of Process of Administrative Claims
-Falcon V. Maricopa County

On February 16, 2006, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One issued a decision interpreting the administrative claims statute.  This decision can be found at 128 P.3d 767 or 471 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 37 (2006).

In Falcon v. Maricopa County, (CV2003-007177), a plaintiff served Maricopa County Supervisor Andrew Kunasek with an administrative claim.  No other county supervisor or other public official was served.  A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) provides that service of an administrative claim on a political subdivision must be made in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.  The applicable rule requires service on the political subdivision’s “chief executive officer, the secretary, clerk, or recording officer thereof.” 

In the Falcon case, a patient died after undergoing surgery at the Maricopa County Medical Center.  Believing his mother’s death was caused by negligence of certain County employees, Mr. Falcon sent a notice of the malpractice claim by certified mail to Andrew Kunasek, a member of the Board of Supervisors, in October of that same year.  On April 11, 2003, the decedent’s children filed a medical malpractice/wrongful-death complaint that named, among others, Maricopa County.  The County moved for summary judgment contending that the complaint was barred due to notice being not served in accordance with A.R.S. §12-821.01(A).  

The County argued that Supervisor Kunasek was not a party authorized to accept service of claims against the County under A.R.S. §12-821.01(A).  Instead, the County took the position that the entire Board of Supervisors constituted the “chief executive officer” of Maricopa County and that service on any one member of the Board members was sufficient for valid service of a claim under A.R.S. § 12-821-01.  Because the service was invalid, the County contended that the lawsuit that followed was subject to dismissal. 

The Court disagreed with the County.  While it held that the Board of Supervisors was the “chief executive officer” for purposes of the statute, it held that service upon any one member of the Board of Supervisors was sufficient to satisfy the administrative claims statute.

A strong dissent, however, was written by one of the newest members of Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Judge Orozco.  Judge Orozco opined that the majority’s position leaves too much to chance.  The dissent found the presumption that one member will notify the rest of the governing board to be ill-founded, especially considering the part-time nature of these positions.  Judge Orozco instead proposed using a bright line rule to require service be made either on a statutorily mandated position (such as the Board’s Clerk) or on the entire Board of Supervisors.    

THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL OPINION.