Brunet v. Murphy

In Brunet v. Murphy, 212 Ariz. 534, 538-40, PP 18-25, 135 P.3d 714, 718-20 (App. 2006), a personal representative filed an amended complaint alleging that a physician had violated the Adult Protective Services Act (the APSA), A.R.S. 46-451 to -457 (1998). Id. at 536-37, PP 4-6, 135 P.3d at 716-17. Four months earlier the Arizona Legislature had amended the APSA to limit physicians' responsibilities unless they qualified under a designated category. Id. at 536, PP 5-6, 135 P.3d at 716. The physician defendant's actions had occurred prior to the amendment's enactment, when the APSA still provided for claims. Id. at 536-37, PP 6-7, 135 P.3d at 716-17. The court held that any "accrued" right against the physician defendant under the former version of the APSA was lost and prevented from vesting because the plaintiff had not filed until after the amendment had taken effect. Id. at 539, P 20, 135 P.3d at 719. "Until the holder of the accrued right chooses to assert it, the right is subject to an 'event that may prevent its vesting,' such as the running of the statute of limitations or a change in the law by the legislature." Id. at 538, P 13, 135 P.3d at 718.