ECHEVARRIA v. GOOD HEALTH

── ECHEVARRIA v. GOOD HEALTH ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ALEXIS ORTIZ ECHEVARRIA, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. GOOD HEALTH MEDICAL, PC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0245 FILED 05-18-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2020-054798 The Honorable Melissa Iyer Julian, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Office of Luis P. Guerra, LLC, Phoenix By Luis P. Guerra Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Shapiro Law Team, Scottsdale By David C. Shapiro Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Ahwatukee Legal Office, PC, Phoenix By David L. Abney Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants  ECHEVARRIA, et al. v. GOOD HEALTH, et al. Decision of the Court Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, PA, Tempe By Bruce D. Crawford Co-Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix By Rita J. Bustos Co-Counsel for Defendants/Appellees MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett also filed a concurring decision. P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Alexis Ortiz Echevarria (“Ortiz”) appeals a jury verdict in favor of Norah Parker and Good Health Medical, P.C., dba “My Dr. Now” (collectively, “Defendants”), and the superior court’s order denying his motion for new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict. Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289, 296, ¶ 26 (App. 2007). ¶3 In 2013, Ortiz’s wife, Jessie Acosta Valentin (“Acosta”), had her spleen, gallbladder, and part of her pancreas removed during surgery for a pancreatic cyst. Her surgeon warned her that she was now immunocompromised because she had no spleen, so she needed to inform all future medical providers that she had no gallbladder and spleen and stay current on pneumonia vaccinations. ¶4 In 2014, Acosta visited My Dr. Now, a primary care and urgent care clinic. On her new patient intake form, she listed three past surgeries: thyroid removal, pancreatic cyst removal, and C-section. She did not share that her gallbladder and spleen had also been removed. 2  ECHEVARRIA, et al. v. GOOD HEALTH, et al. Decision of the Court ¶5 Acosta visited My Dr. Now a few more times over the next several years for acute concerns. None of the records from those visits indicated Acosta did not have a spleen. ¶6 On January 21, 2019, Ortiz brought Acosta to My Dr. Now because she was suffering from body aches, chills, fever, dry cough, sore throat, nasal congestion, nausea, and vomiting. She was treated by Parker, a physician assistant (“PA”), who had never treated Acosta before. ¶7 Parker assessed Acosta’s vitals, asked about her symptoms, conducted a physical examination, and analyzed several lab results, including a strep throat rapid test, urinalysis, and blood glucose test. Based on her examination, Parker found Acosta’s diabetes was well-controlled and all symptoms were consistent with the flu. She prescribed Tamiflu and an anti-nausea medication and instructed Acosta to go to the emergency department if her symptoms worsened. ¶8 The next day, Acosta went to the emer