Family Law

• Guardianship
  35. I have been an attorney for over 30 years and I retained Scott to handle a personal injury case for my minor nephew, as it was not the area of law in which I practice. He not only obtained a sizable settlement, he handled all aspects of the case including the establishment of the guardianship. At all times Scott was responsive, involved...

Criminal Law

• Wrongful Death
  I and my professional staff of paralegals, legal assistants and investigators have been providing assistance to families with wrongful death lawsuits for more than 30 years. My firm represents families in claims and lawsuits involving...
• Assault
• Murder

Property Law

• Premises Liability

Health Law

• Personal Injury
  Personal injury claims are brought by victims who suffer physical or psychological injury directly due to another person’s negligence. I employ a practical, professional approach to help ensure that my clients obtain full and fair recovery for their injuries, including damages for their past and future medical bills, lost income, emotional distress, and pain and suffering. I use my extensive civil litigation experience, my knowledge about insurance company tactics and my skills at settlement negotiation to obtain the best possible recovery for my clients.
• Medical Malpractice
  At Scott A. McKay P.C., I have more than 30 years of experience successfully helping injured clients recover just compensation for losses resulting from auto accidents, medical malpractice, unsafe products, dangerous drugs, slips and falls, dog bites, and unsafe work conditions
• Auto Accidents
• Dog Bites
  Arizona statutes hold dog owners strictly liable for damages caused by dog bites. For example, Mulcahy v. Damron is a case where a husband and wife left their dog Zeke at a pet hospital while they went on vacation. At the pet hospital, Zeke bit one of the groomers when the groomer tried to give Zeke a bath. In that case, the court held that the owners may be responsible for damages caused by the bite. The difference between a common law claim and a statutory claim is that under a statutory claim, the plaintiff does not need to show the defendant knew or should have known the dog had abnormally dangerous propensities. However, unlike in Schleier, this statute does not apply to child victims who reside in the same house as the owner and who were bitten at the family home. See A.R.S. § 11-1025. See also Mulcahy v. Damron, 816 P. 2d 270 (Ariz. App. 1991); Spirlong v. Browne, 336 P. 3d 779 (Ariz. App. 2014).