CAMPISE v. VHS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE Steven Campise, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) VHS Acquisition Corp. dba West ) Valley Hospital, and Abrazo ) Healthcare facility; VHS of ) Phoenix, Inc. dba Phoenix Baptist ) Hospital, an Abrazo Healthcare ) ) facility; Vanguard Health ) Management, ) Defendants/Appellees. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/19/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CV 11-0501 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2010-070238 The Honorable Larry Grant, Judge AFFIRMED Steven Campise Pro-se Litigant Coppersmith Schermer & Brockelman PLC By Kent Brockelman Roopali H. Desai Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee T H U M M A, Judge Goodyear Phoenix ¶1 Steven Campise ( Campise ) appeals from the superior court s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim on res judicata grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Campise was an employee at West Valley Hospital until he was terminated in February 2009. Campise alleges that soon after he was terminated, West Valley Hospital filed a report with the violated Arizona rules of State Board professional of Nursing, medical alleging conduct. Campise Campise then filed a complaint in superior court (CV 2009-033662) against West Valley Hospital whose true name is Hospital Development of West Phoenix ; VHS of Phoenix, Inc.; Vanguard Health Management and others (collectively, defendants ). Plaintiff s complaint in CV2009-033662 alleged defendants defamed him, improperly terminated his employment and failed to protect patients. ¶3 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Campise failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the superior court granted. Campise filed a notice of appeal, which he then withdrew. ¶4 Campise then filed a second case against VHS Acquisition Corporation, also known as Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Management and Inc. ; others VHS in of Phoenix, superior Inc.; court Vanguard (CV Health 2010-070238), alleging defendants defamed him and failed to protect patients. Defendants moved to dismiss the second case for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which the superior court granted, finding the second case was barred by res judicata. ¶5 Campise timely filed this pro se appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 122101(B) (Westlaw 2012). 1 DISCUSSION ¶6 Although Campise lists several issues on appeal, he does not argue the superior court erred in dismissing his second case on res judicata grounds. Accordingly, Campise waived that issue. See Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified School Dist. No. 97, 186 Ariz. 161, 167, 920 P.2d 41, 47 (App. 1996) ( Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party s appellate brief are waived. ). ¶7 Even if Campise had raised res judicata on appeal, the superior court ground. Res properly judicata dismissed precludes his parties second from case on that relitigating an issue that has been previously adjudicated. Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 573, 716 P.2d 28, 30 (1986). It applies when (1) the issues decided in the prior action are identical 1 to the issues being litigated in the subsequent Absent material revisions to this decision, we cite the current Westlaw version of applicable statutes. action, (2) the prior ruling was a judgment on the merits and (3) the parties against whom res judicata is asserted were parties to or in privity with a party in the prior action. Id. A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal disposes of the merits and takes res judicata effect. Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 502, 507, 744 P.2d 29, 34 (App. 1987). Res judicata is an issue of law, and we review the trial court s decision de novo. Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 4, 189 P.3d 1102, 1104 (App. 2008). ¶8 In the second case, Campise alleged a subset of the same claims alleged in his first case and made his allegations against the Campise a superior same full court defendants in both opportunity to entered order an cases. litigate his dismissing After first his affording case, the claims for failure to state a claim. Because the claims and parties in the second case were identical, the superior court correctly dismissed Campise s second case on res judicata grounds. 2 CONCLUSION ¶9 2 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. On May 25, 2012, after filing this appeal, Campise filed with this Court a Notice of Complaint to Arizona Medical Board and a Motion for Clarification of A.R.S. 32-1664(D). The Notice of Complaint requests no judicial action from this Court. To the extent the Motion for Clarification seeks judicial action from this Court, that Motion is denied as moot given this Memorandum Decision affirming the superior court s dismissal. /s/____________________________ Samuel A. Thumma, Judge CONCURRING: /s/_____________________________________ Patricia A. Orozco, Presiding Judge /s/_____________________________________ Jon W. Thompson, Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.