In Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A., 204 Ariz. 124, 126, P 6, 60 P.3d 703, 705 (App. 2002), the Court held, A.R.S. 12-2602 (2000), which required plaintiffs to disclose preliminary expert opinion evidence in cases against licensed professionals, was constitutional. 204 Ariz. at 129, P 23, 60 P.3d at 708. In Bertleson, the plaintiffs argued that the statute at issue was unconstitutional because it infringed on the Arizona Supreme Court's rulemaking authority. Id. at 129, P 20, 60 P.3d at 708. The Court held that A.R.S. 12-2602 did not conflict with our supreme court's rulemaking power: Nothing in A.R.S. 12-2602 is in conflict with or engulfs our supreme court's rulemaking power. Contrary to the Bertlesons' allegations, neither Rule 26.1 nor Rule 16(c) require disclosures at a time different than what is provided for in A.R.S. 12-2602. the statute provides for disclosure of preliminary expert opinions--consistent with Rule 26.1(a)--at the time for serving disclosure statements in accordance with Rule 26.1(b)(1). the Rule 16(c) pretrial conference procedures for medical malpractice cases also pose no conflict. the current version of A.R.S. 12-2602 supplements the procedural rules and does not violate the separation of powers clause. Id. at P 22.