ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

10A-42617-MDX · Arizona Medical Board · 2010-11-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 21, 2010. The record was kept open until November 1, 2010. APPEARANCES: Brian Lee O’Connor, M.D. appeared personally. The Arizona Medical Board was represented by Assistant Attorney General Anne Froedge. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona Medical Board (“Board”) is the authority for licensing and regulating the practice of allopathic medicine in Arizona. 2. Brian Lee O’Connor, M.D. appealed the Board’s action of upholding its Executive Director’s denial of Dr. O’Connor’s application for licensure. 3. The Board forwarded Dr. O’Connor’s appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 4. On September 28, 2009, Dr. O’Connor filed an Application for licensure with the Board. 5. In paragraph 3 of his Application, Dr. O’Connor disclosed that he held or had held the following medical licenses: License No. 5215, an active license in South Dakota; and License No. 22427, an inactive license in Nebraska. 6. Dr. O’Connor answered “Yes” to the question in paragraph 14 of his Application that asked the following: “Have you ever voluntarily surrendered any healthcare license?” 7. Dr. O’Connor answered “Yes” to the question in paragraph 16 of his Application that asked the following: “Have you ever been the subject of disciplinary action or are you currently under investigation with regard to your healthcare license, been sanctioned by any healthcare licensing authority, healthcare association, licensed healthcare facility or healthcare staff of such facility?” 8. Dr. O’Connor answered “Yes” to the question in paragraph 17 of his Application that asked the following: “Have your privileges ever been restricted, terminated, voluntarily or involuntarily resigned or withdrawn by any healthcare licensing authority, healthcare association, licensed healthcare facility or healthcare staff of such facility?” 9. Dr. O’Connor answered “Yes” to the question in paragraph 18 of his Application that asked the following: “Has disciplinary action been taken against you by any licensing agency with regard to any professional license? Including but not limited to restricted, terminated, voluntarily or involuntarily resigned or withdrawn.” 10. Dr. O’Connor answered “Yes” to the following question in his Application: “Are you now being treated or have you in the last 5 years been treated for a drug or alcohol addiction or participated in a rehabilitation program?” Dr. O’Connor’s Explanation of “Yes” Responses 11. Dr. O’Connor supplemented his “Yes” answers by detailing action taken in South Dakota. Dr. O’Connor explained that he is an addict. His drug of choice was Vicodin, beginning with the medication being prescribed for treatment of migraine headaches and later also for a foot injury. In 2005, Dr. O’Connor began taking his prescribed Vicodin to relieve stress. During this period of time, and unbeknownst to his wife, Dr. O’Connor was also abusing alcohol. 12. Dr. O’Connor’s wife realized that he was abusing Vicodin and informed Dr. O’Connor’s employer, Regional Health Physicians, in South Dakota. 13. Regional Health Physicians put Dr. O’Connor on ten days administrative leave and required him to sign a return to work agreement that stated that he would not use opiates again. Dr. O’Connor executed the return to work agreement. 14. Shortly thereafter, Dr. O’Connor took two Vicodins from his wife’s medication that was prescribed to her for a spinal cord injury. Mrs. O’Connor then gave Dr. O’Connor an ultimatum that either he inform Regional Health Physicians that he had relapsed, or she would do so. Dr. O’Connor informed his employer of his relapse. He was then terminated for violating his return to work agreement. 15. After he was terminated from his employment, Dr. O’Connor completed a 30-day inpatient treatment program at Keystone Treatment Center. 16. Following his inpatient treatment program, Dr. O’Connor was contacted by the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners (“SD Board”) about his drug addiction. 17. In January 2008, Dr. O’Connor voluntarily surrendered his South Dakota license to practice medicine. On March 26, 2008, the SD Board issued an Order Accepting Statement of Voluntary Suspension of Dr. O’Connor’s South Dakota license number 5215 “until such time as the Board decides whether to consider reinstating his license at a hearing to be set by the Board.” 18. Dr. O’Connor explained that for the previous 20 months, he had been working on his sobriety with the South Dakota Health Professional Assistance Program (“HPAP”). As a result, the SD Board reinstated Dr. O’Connor’s South Dakota medical license with the conditions that Dr. O’Connor “continue with HPAP and document sobriety.” SD Board Action subsequently received by the Arizona Medical Board (Board) 19. On September 6, 2009, Dr. O’Connor and the SD Board entered into a Stipulation on Agreed Disposition, wherein the SD Board recommended that Dr. O’Connor’s South Dakota medical license be reinstated with the following restrictions: 1. Dr. O’Connor and his license shall be placed on probation for as long as he is the holder of a South Dakota medical license. 2. He shall be mandated into the South Dakota Health Professionals Assistance Program (SDHPAP) for an indeterminate period and shall comply with all SDHPAP requirements. 3. Unexcused failure to make a daily contact is not allowable by the Board. For as long as he is in the SDHPAP program, he will not miss any of the required daily contacts with the on- line drug monitoring system without prior approval. 4. He will sign any required release and will take all necessary steps to ensure that SDHPAP provides quarterly reports to the Board. 5. He shall maintain complete and permanent abstinence from alcohol. 6. He shall maintain complete and permanent abstinence from all mind-altering and/or controlled substance(s). He shall promptly notify the Board if he is prescribed such mind- altering and/or controlled substance(s) by a licensed healthcare provider for legitimate medical purposes. 7. He shall attend at least three (3) AA meetings per week and he shall provide a quarterly log of the attendance dates to the Board. 8. At his sole expense, he shall submit blood, urine, hair or other specimens for testing purposes whenever required by the Board. 9. He shall make personal appearance(s) before the Board or its committee if required and will be given reasonable notice of the dates, times and locations for his appearance. 10. He shall be permitted to maintain a DEA registration under the following conditions: A. He shall keep a detailed and complete log of all medications, including controlled substances and samples that he administers, dispenses, and or [sic] prescribes. B. He shall also keep a master inventory sheet for each controlled substance which is balanced out weekly or daily to determine shortages or overages, which would include amount ordered, administered or dispensed, and balanced to determine overages and shortages. C. He shall not administer, dispense or prescribe any medications, including samples, for himself, his family, or any other person who is not a legitimate and documented patient. D. He shall not be permitted to accept, dispense or administer samples of controlled substances. E. He shall make a photocopy of each prescription for all medications, including controlled substances and samples that he prescribes and mail the photocopies on the first day of each month to the Board. F. The Board shall decide what is to be reported in both the log and the master inventory sheet and shall provide the Excel spreadsheet format to him. The format will include but not be limited to the following entries: a) medication name and quantity; b) date medication was administered, dispensed and or prescribed; c) a code for each patient name, date of birth, address, telephone number and diagnosis; d) amount ordered, administered or dispensed. By separate email a list of patient names will be provided in order to decode the log. G. He shall submit electronically by email to, [email redacted], the general email address of the Board with “Rx O’Connor” in the subject line every Monday prior to noon Mountain Time. If any changes are made to the Excel spreadsheet, the email address, the subject line, the reporting information, or the date and time for reporting shall be notified by the Board in writing. 11. Once he begins his active practice of medicine, he shall provide written notification to the Board and include all the contact information regarding his employer and place of employment. 12. He shall promptly notify the Board in writing if his employer(s) notifies him about any concerns, deficiencies, violations, warnings, initiates an investigation, or imposes any type of corrective action, verbal and/or written, formal and/or informal against him. 13. If he changes employment in the future, he shall promptly notify the Board in writing each time he changes employment and will provide all contact information of his new employment. 14. If he leaves the state of South Dakota to practice medicine in another state, he shall promptly notify the Board in writing and will provide all contact information regarding his new location. 15. In the event that the Board is reasonably satisfied that he has failed to maintain compliance with SDHPAP or has breached any of the terms and conditions of this agreement, Dr. O’Connor will be notified that he is to appear at a hearing and show cause why his restricted license should not be permanently revoked. 16. No modification of this agreement is valid unless it is in writing and approved by the Board. 17. If Dr. O’Connor believes that any of the conditions and restrictions placed upon his license are ambiguous or need additional clarification, he shall mail a request thereof to the Executive Director as soon as practicable.

[Emphasis in the original.]

20. Dr. O’Connor executed the Stipulation on Agreed Disposition agreeing “to the restrictions and conditions contained herein.” 21. On September 15, 2009, the SD Board issued an Order to Approve Stipulation on Agreed Disposition, which ordered “that Dr. O’Connor’s license #5215 is reinstated with conditions and/or restrictions placed on his medical license.” 22. By letter dated October 9, 2009, HPAP staff informed the Board at Dr. O’Connor’s request that since enrolling in HPAP’s program on August 13, 2007, “he has maintained uninterrupted sobriety since that time.” HPAP staff also included a copy of Dr. O’Connor’s Participation Agreement with HPAP. Arizona Medical Board Case MD-09-1646A 23. By letter dated January 6, 2010, Board staff advised Dr. O’Connor that the Board had opened case MD-09-1646A based upon his Application for licensure in Arizona. Board staff informed Dr. O’Connor that the Board had referred him to the Board’s Physician Health Program (“PHP”) for an assessment with the Board’s addiction specialist. 24. On January 28, 2010, Dr. O’Connor was evaluated by David G. Greenberg, M.D. of Greenberg & Sucher, P.C., the Board’s addiction medicine consultants. 25. After completing his evaluation of Dr. O’Connor, Dr. Greenberg drafted an evaluation report dated February 4, 2010. 26. Dr. Greenberg’s report contains the following Diagnostic Impression: Dr. O’Connor is in relatively early recovery from opioid dependency and alcohol abuse. He has been clean and sober for two years, but he has not worked as a physician since before he went into treatment in late 2007. [Emphasis in the original.]

27. Dr. Greenberg’s report contains the following Discussion and Recommendation: This consultant recommends that the [Board] consider Dr. O’Connor for a probationary license and if he is licensed in AZ, that he be required to participate in the full MAP program. It is also recommended that Dr. O’Connor have a practice monitor who submits quarterly reports to the MAP for the first two years of the doctor’s employment in the State of Arizona. Finally, if Dr. O’Connor ever believes he needs to restart any psychotropic meds, he must obtain a MAP approved treating psychiatrist who will supply us with quarterly reports. [Emphasis in the original.]

28. By letter dated February 15, 2010, Dr. O’Connor supplemented his Application by pointing out matters in mitigation: that he did not do drugs either while working or while on call; that he sought treatment on his own; that he had over two years of complete sobriety; that he attends meetings; and that he has become active in his church. 29. By letter dated February 26, 2010, Kathleen Muller of the Board’s Physician Monitoring Program advised Dr. O’Connor that the Board’s investigation was nearing completion.[1] Ms. Muller forwarded to Dr. O’Connor a compact disc containing supporting documents. Dr. O’Connor was given the opportunity to file a response to address those documents by March 12, 2010. 30. Dr. O’Connor had requested that SD Board place his medical license on inactive status, which did occur. On March 1, 2010, Dr. O’Connor’s South Dakota medical license expired due to nonrenewal. Dr. O’Connor did not inform the Board that his South Dakota medical license had expired. 31. By letter dated March 11, 2010, Dr. O’Connor acknowledged his review of the Board’s documentation in his case. Dr. O’Connor stated that his prior conduct “has been corrected, monitored, and resolved.” 32. On March 18, 2010, Dr. O’Connor participated in an interview with Board staff. 33. On March 25, 2010, Dr. Greenberg drafted an Addendum to his evaluation report for Dr. O’Connor, which reads as follows: Communication from the [Board] revealed that Dr. O’Connor has had three relapses on Vicodin since his completion of chemical dependency treatment. Both Jessica Droze and I only remember the doctor stating that he had a single post treatment relapse shortly after completing treatment that apparently resulted in a temporary suspension of his medical license.

In view of the doctor’s additional relapses, the fact that he has not yet been monitored under the stress of returning to practice, and the fact that AZ MAP does not normally utilize practice monitors, I believe that the best course would perhaps be to allow the doctor to withdraw his application, and instead be successfully monitored as a practicing physician in South Dakota for two or three years prior to any re-application for licensure in Arizona. [Emphasis in the original.]

34. Ms. Muller, drafted an Investigative Report dated March 29, 2010. Ms. Muller’s Investigative Report contains a conclusion similar to Dr. Greenberg’s Addendum, with the following additional concerns: In addition, Dr. O’Connor has had 3 relapses since leaving treatment in December 2007. Arizona MAP participants are required to again enter treatment upon a relapse, which Dr. O’Connor did not do. After the second relapse, Arizona MAP participants are subject to the “three strike” policy and no longer qualify for MAP. The licensee is allowed to surrender their medical license or be referred to formal hearing for revocation. Board Staff recommends that the Board deny Dr. O’Connor an Arizona medical license. Board Staff gave Dr. O’Connor the option to withdraw his license application based on the recommendation for license denial. Dr. O’Connor stated he would like to pursue his application.

35. Dr. O’Connor addressed the issue of his relapses in an undated correspondence to Ms. Muller, which explained as follows: I have now found the addendum to Dr. Greenberg’s report, and I feel I do need to clarify further. I did relapse out of treatment as I have stated and my sobriety date is February 2, 2008. However, I believe that although this relapse did in fact involve the use of Vicodin TWICE (not three times) these occurrences happened in such close proximity to one another that my chemical dependency counselor does in fact consider this a singe relapse event, not three separate relapses as stated in the report, also as stated because it involved only two instances. The reason Dr. Greenberg I believe thought that this was a single relapse is probable because that is how I have in fact viewed it based on many meetings and conversations I have had with my CD counselor. These occurrences happened in less than a 2 week timeframe, and does not change the fact that I have been sober for well over 2 years and monitored for almost 2 years….It is not appropriate to impose the 3 strike policy as stated primarily because 3 strikes have not occurred no matter how you view it, and I was also not enrolled in the AZ program at the time. [Emphasis in the original.]

36. In the same undated correspondence referenced in Finding of Fact #35, Dr. O’Connor addressed the Board staff’s concerns about the stress of Dr. O’Connor returning to practice as follows: As to the concerns of the stress to returning to practice, I do understand that concern. However, as stated, part of the reason I wish to practice in AZ is because it would be less stressful than practice in SD. In addition, although medicine is certainly stressful, I would maintain that it is far less stressful than losing my home to foreclosure, facing divorce and losing my son, losing my car, not being able to pay my bills and all the other stress I have endured and maintained sobriety during the last 2 + years.

37. In another undated correspondence to Ms. Muller, Dr. O’Connor wrote the following concerning his attempt to become licensed in Arizona: Finally, although I have made mistakes, I believe I have paid the price for those mistakes and deserve to return to the practice of medicine and know that I am an excellent physician, as can be substantiated by many references. In addition, I now feel that to a certain degree I am being punished for my honesty. Although for me and my recovery, I would never be anything but honest, I feel that by disclosing the entire truth, it is greatly hurting my efforts to obtain a medical license. I will continue to be open and honest, but being honest about events 2+ years ago seem [sic] to be more of the focus rather than the events of the last two years. I also feel that this is unfortunate. I want the Board and Board Staff to know everything, but I wish that more of the focus could be the last years and that credit should be given where credit is due.

38. By letter dated March 30, 2010, Ms. Muller sent Dr. O’Connor additional documentation regarding his case and he was given the opportunity to respond in writing to the new documentation by April 9, 2010. 39. On April 13, 2010, HPAP discharged Dr. O’Connor due to the expiration of his South Dakota medical license. 40. The Board’s Staff Investigational Review Committee (“SIRC”) reviewed the case involving Dr. O’Connor and issued a written Recommendation dated April 22, 2010. 41. SIRC was comprised of the following individuals: Christi Banys, Board operations manager; Kathleen Coffer, M.D., Board medical consultant; and Pat McSorley, Board case review manager. 42. The SIRC Recommendation contains the following Discussion section: SIRC recognized that Dr. O’Connor does not have two-three years of documented sobriety while practicing medicine. SIRC noted that Dr. O’Connor admitted to relapsing but did not re-enter treatment to address the relapse. SIRC noted that the South Dakota Board has indicated that Dr. O’Connor is currently in compliance with his Order. However, SIRC found that Dr. O’Connor has missed several daily call ins [sic], which is a violation of his South Dakota Board Order. In addition, Dr. O’Connor has not been submitting the required self-reports on time and has not been attending the required professional support group meetings as required by his South Dakota monitoring agreement.

SIRC observed that the South Dakota Board considers Dr. O’Connor’s license to be restricted. SIRC noted that applicants who currently hold a restricted license to practice medicine do not meet the basic requirements for licensure in Arizona. SIRC noted that the Board’s Addiction Medicine Consultant recommended that Dr. O’Connor remain in compliance with the South Dakota Board Order and may reapply for licensure in Arizona after maintaining at least two to three years of sobriety while practicing medicine in South Dakota. SIRC concluded that Dr. O’Connor has not sufficiently corrected, monitored, or resolved his chemical dependency issues, and recommended denying the application at this time.

43. By letter dated May 10, 2010, the Board’s Executive Director, Lisa S. Wynn, informed Dr. O’Connor that she had denied his Application because he did not meet the basic requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1422 (A)(4) and (6). The Executive Director gave the following explanation for her denial of Dr. O’Connor’s application: In determining if the requirements of subsection A, paragraph 4 have been met, if the board finds that the applicant committed an act or engaged in conduct that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action, the board must determine to its satisfaction that the conduct has been corrected, monitored and resolved. If the matter has not been resolved, the board must determine to its satisfaction that mitigating circumstances exist that prevent its resolution. A.R.S. § 32-1422(C).

The medical license issued to you by the State of South Dakota is currently under restriction by the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners for an act that occurred in that state that constitutes unprofessional conduct pursuant to the Arizona Medical Practice Act. Because your South Dakota medical license is still restricted, the matter has not been resolved. Therefore, you do not meet the basic requirements for licensure in the State of Arizona.

44. Dr. O’Connor appealed the Executive Director’s denial of his application for licensure to the Board for consideration. 45. On August 11, 2010, Dr. O’Connor’s appeal was considered by the Board. The Draft Minutes for that portion of the AZ Board’s meeting reads as follows: Dr. O’Connor and Mrs. Tracy O’Connor spoke during the call to the public. Kathleen Muller, Physician Health Program, presented this matter to the Board. Board members noted that Dr. O’Connor currently holds a restricted medical license in South Dakota, and that the restriction remains in effect until such time that he no longer holds a South Dakota medical license. It was also noted that the Board’s Addiction Medicine Consultant recommended that Dr. O’Connor practice in South Dakota while being monitored for a period of two to three years prior to reapplying for licensure in Arizona….Ms. Muller pointed out that not only is Dr. O’Connor to maintain a period of sobriety after returning to practice in South Dakota, she stated that he does not qualify for an Arizona medical license while holding a restricted license in another state. Ms. Muller also stated that Dr. O’Connor has not returned to work since the time he completed treatment….Dr. Krishna clarified that upon reapplying for an Arizona medical license, Dr. O’Connor should have a non- restricted license and two years of documented sobriety while practicing medicine. Dr. Lee expressed concern with Dr. O’Connor’s call to the public statement in which he indicated that he has been sober for two years; however, he did not specify if it was while he was practicing medicine. Board members noted that pursuant to Arizona statute, the Board cannot issue a license to an applicant that holds a restricted medical license in another state.

46. It is apparent that Dr. O’Connor failed to advise Board staff or the Board that his South Dakota license had been placed on inactive status at his request and then expired on March 1, 2010, for non-renewal. 47. By letter dated August 24, 2010, Board staff advised Dr. O’Connor that the Board had considered his appeal at its August 11, 2010. The Board voted to uphold the Executive Director’s denial of Dr. O’Connor’s application for the reasons stated in the Executive Director’s May 10, 2010 letter. 48. By letter dated September 7, 2010, Dr. O’Connor filed his appeal of the Board’s denial of his Application for licensure in Arizona. 49. On or about September 24, 2010, HPAP staff sent correspondence to Ms. Muller, which contained the following discussion of Dr. O’Connor’s participation in HPAP: [Dr. O’Connor] signed a participation agreement with our program on August 13, 2008. Due to financial difficulties, he was not able to begin his daily check-in’s [sic] with Affinity Online Solutions (AOS) until September 9, 2008. From September 2008 to early September 2009, Dr. O’Connor did fairly well with his monitoring contract. He had 16 negative urinalyses [sic] (UA) during that time and was very active in his 12-step meetings and his HPAP support group meetings. Dr. O’Connor’s next quarter covering September through November of 2009, documented many missed calls-in to the AOS system resulting in him not submitting a urine sample for his UA on November 24, 2009. During this 3-month period, Dr. O’Connor had not submitted his required monthly self-reports or AA documentation, and had discontinued attending his HPAP support group. It was at this time that the SD HPAP deemed Dr. O’Connor non-compliant with his monitoring contract. An HPAP Associate, Sherry Grismer, spoke with Dr. O’Connor about this on December 9, 2009 and on January 7, 2010. Dr. O’Connor indicated to her that he had met with the Arizona monitoring program and signed a contract with them. Ms. Grismer stated that SD HPAP needed a copy of that contract so that we could transition his monitoring to the AZ program per SD Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiner’s [sic] (SDBMOE) approval. On January 20, 2010, Dr. O’Connor sent HPAP an email that his attorney had just given him permission to send us a copy of his contract. SD HPAP has never received this contract and has no information about the requirements of that contract or the status of his compliance with the monitoring program. Between December 1, 2009 and April 7, 2010, Dr. O’Connor missed check-in’s. [sic] His last UA with our program was on December 28, 2009. His last submission of any of the required reports was in October of 2009.

During this time, the SD HPAP was in contact with the SDBMOE to communicate these compliance issues. We also made them aware that we had made several attempts to have contact with Dr. O’Connor by phone and mail and had not had any communication with him since the January 20, 2010 email. In April of 2010, HPAP was informed by the SDBMOE that his SD medical license was not renewed. HPAP then discharged him from our program.

50. Dr. O’Connor’s contention that his conduct has been “corrected, monitored and resolved” is not supported by the evidence of record. Dr. O’Connor has not been monitored since October 2009, shortly after his South Dakota medical license was reinstated. Dr. O’Connor relapsed but did not seek inpatient treatment and appears to discount his relapses. 51. Dr. O’Connor never entered into an agreement with the Board for monitoring. 52. Dr. O’Connor’s South Dakota medical license was reinstated by the SD Board with restrictions, contrary to Dr. O’Connor’s assertions. 53. Dr. O’Connor failed to present any credible independent medical evidence to support his contention that his unprofessional conduct has been “corrected, monitored and resolved.” On the contrary, the Board presented credible evidence of Dr. Greenberg’s recommendation to deny Dr. O’Connor’s application for licensure for the reasons stated in the above Findings of Fact. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter in this appeal. 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G) (1) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Dr. O’Connor has the burden of proof in this appeal. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. Dr. O’Connor failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1422(A) (4) for licensure in Arizona. The evidence of record supports this conclusion. 4. Dr. O’Connor failed meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1422(A) (6) when he applied for licensure in Arizona. The expiration of Dr. O’Connor’s restricted South Dakota medical license for nonrenewal does not resolve this issue. Dr. O’Connor’s conduct in South Dakota constitutes unprofessional conduct in Arizona. The evidence of record supports this conclusion. 5. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Dr. O’Connor’s conduct involving alcohol and drug addiction has not been “corrected, monitored and resolved,” as required by A.R.S. § 32-1422(C). The evidence of record supports this conclusion. RECOMMENDED ORDER Dr. O’Connor’s appeal of the Board’s denial of his Application for licensure is denied. The Board’s denial of Dr. O’Connor’s Application is upheld and affirmed.

Done this day, November 16, 2010.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Lisa Wynn, Executive Director Arizona Medical Board ----------------------- [1] Ms. Muller testified that she is the manager of the Board’s PHP.

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826