## Facts

- Patricia C. Roland sued neurosurgeon Ronald A. Bernstein, M.D., his professional corporation (Desert Neurosurgery of Tucson, P.C.), an anesthesiologist (Joseph Marcinkowski), and a hospital (Tucson General Hospital) for medical malpractice.
- Before trial, Marcinkowski and Tucson General each settled with Roland for $700,000, totaling $1,400,000.
- The case proceeded to trial against Bernstein and Desert Neurosurgery.
- The jury found Roland’s total damages were $1,965,000.
- The jury apportioned fault as follows: 47% Bernstein, 28% Marcinkowski, and 25% Tucson General.
- Based on fault allocation, Bernstein’s share of the verdict equaled $923,550 (47% of $1,965,000).
- The trial court reduced the judgment against Bernstein by the $1,400,000 in settlements and entered judgment for $565,000.
- Roland appealed the reduction; Bernstein and Desert Neurosurgery cross-appealed on other issues not central to the setoff question.

## Issues

1. Whether A.R.S. § 12-2504 requires a dollar-for-dollar reduction of a nonsettling defendant’s judgment by amounts paid in settlements by other tortfeasors when liability is several and fault is apportioned.
2. Whether, after comparative fault apportionment, the plaintiff’s “claim against” a nonsettling defendant is the total damages reduced by settlements, or the defendant’s percentage share of total damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s reduction of the judgment.
- The court held A.R.S. § 12-2504 did not require deducting the prior settlements from Bernstein’s adjudicated percentage share.
- The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with Bernstein’s full proportionate liability (47% of the total damages), rather than the reduced amount produced by subtracting settlement dollars from the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- In a comparative-fault, several-liability regime, a nonsettling tortfeasor generally must pay the percentage share of damages allocated by the trier of fact.
- A.R.S. § 12-2504’s settlement “reduces the claim” language does not operate to reduce a severally liable defendant’s apportioned share by settlement amounts paid by others when that would make the defendant pay less than the assigned percentage of fault.
- Settlement amounts may exceed or fall short of the settling parties’ fault-based shares; allowing dollar-for-dollar setoff against a nonsettling defendant’s apportioned liability can create a windfall inconsistent with several liability and comparative fault allocation.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that where a jury allocates fault under several liability, the nonsettling defendant is not entitled to a dollar-for-dollar setoff under A.R.S. § 12-2504 that would reduce the defendant’s fault-based share of the plaintiff’s damages.


Roland v. Bernstein, 828 P.2d 1237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991)