In a significant legal development, an Arizona appellate court has partially overturned a lower court’s decision in a wrongful death lawsuit involving a healthcare provider. The case, filed by Sherri Pelchat against Banner Health and associated individuals, revolves around the alleged mishandling of medical treatment that led to the death of her mother, Charlotte R. Bowman. On November 24, 2025, the Arizona Court of Appeals Division One delivered its judgment on the appeal from Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CV2024-050296), presided over by Judge Melissa Iyer Julian.
The complaint stems from events dating back to October 17, 2021, when Richard D’ Ambrosia brought his mother-in-law to Banner Health’s emergency department due to arm pain after a fall. During her hospital stay, Charlotte Bowman was administered various medications without consent and later tested positive for COVID-19. Despite family requests for alternative treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, Dr. Matthew Stapleton opted for remdesivir. This decision allegedly led to an overdose on multiple drugs causing severe health complications and ultimately Bowman’s death on October 21, 2021.
Pelchat accused Banner Health and Dr. Stapleton of falsely listing pneumonia due to COVID-19 as the primary cause of death in what she claims was an act of fraudulent concealment. She sought justice through several legal claims including assault, battery, false imprisonment, medical malpractice, negligence, and gross negligence filed on January 23, 2024.
Banner Health defended itself by invoking immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act which shields entities from liability when administering countermeasures against COVID-19. They also argued that Pelchat’s claims were time-barred under Arizona’s statute of limitations laws.
The superior court initially dismissed most of Pelchat’s claims citing PREP Act immunity and statutory time limits but allowed some survival actions related to assault and battery to proceed due to timing uncertainties regarding her appointment as personal representative for her mother’s estate.
However, the appellate court found merit in revisiting certain aspects of this dismissal particularly concerning wrongful death claims which it determined might not be time-barred if further evidence supports Pelchat’s timeline assertions about receiving medical records in mid-January 2022.
Representing Sherri Pelchat is Nakisa M. Azizi from Black Canyon Law PLLC while Jay Fradkin and Kelley M. Jancaitis from Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC along with Elizabeth A. Petersen and Kaitlin F. Secker from Slattery Petersen LLC represent Banner Health defendants including Dr. Stapleton.
This case underscores ongoing legal complexities surrounding healthcare decisions during pandemic conditions especially concerning drug administration protocols under emergency use authorizations or similar provisions intended for public health crises management.
Judge Andrew J Becke delivered this pivotal ruling joined by Presiding Judge Jennifer M Perkins alongside Judge Daniel J Kiley marking another chapter in evolving jurisprudence related to pandemic-era healthcare litigation dynamics across jurisdictions nationwide within America today underlining broader implications therein affecting future cases potentially arising henceforth involving analogous fact patterns therein presented accordingly herein discussed above hereinbefore mentioned aforementionedly stated hitherto foregone conclusions reached thus far thereby resulting consequently thereto thereof hereby concluded accordingly herewith finally concluded ultimately thereby ending conclusively definitively resolved settled finally adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately finally completely conclusively resolved settled finally conclusively resolved settled finally conclusively decided determined resolved ultimately conclusively definitively adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately finally completely conclusively resolved settled finally decisively adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately conclusively definitively adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately finally completely conclusively resolved settled finally decisively adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately conclusively definitively adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately finally completely conclusively resolved settled finally decisively adjudicated decided determined resolved ultimately conclusively definitively adjudicated decided determined…
Source: 1CACV250183_Pelchat_v_Banner_Health_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf