By admin 
PAYSON, AZ (AZFamily) — The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled a man mistakenly bitten by a Payson police K-9 in 2023 cannot move forward with his lawsuit against the town and its police department because of a paperwork issue.
Read more Mayes, Petersen clash over law enforcement, immigration in first AG debate
The court did not decide whether Payson police were responsible for the man’s injuries. Instead, the case turned on one detail in the notice he filed before suing.
What happened during the arrest
A police K-9 was supposed to go after a driver police believed crashed into a power pole while impaired and was uncooperative. Instead, the K-9, named Corso, ran past the suspect as officers handcuffed him and attacked Joe Terborg as he stood outside his home and business.
“He chewed it pretty good,” Terborg said. “He went from my elbow all the way down to my wrist. It was 58 puncture wounds, stitches and a few things like that.”
“The first thing I remember him saying is ‘it’s only a dog bite’ when he pulled it off me and that really hurt, you know, nobody called an ambulance for me,” Terborg said.
The notice of claim
Terborg filed a notice of claim against the town of Payson, a step Arizona law requires within 180 days after the event so government agencies can investigate, determine liability and possibly settle before a lawsuit is filed.
The notice offered to settle the case for $100,000 but also listed $250,000 in parentheses. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that state law requires one specific settlement amount.
Legal experts react to case ending
Criminal defense attorney Russ Richelsoph, who is not associated with the case, said the ruling means Payson avoided a potentially expensive lawsuit because of the plaintiff’s mistake.
Read more Is Kyrsten Sinema’s livelihood, reputation at risk after ex-lover’s arrest?
“What’s happened is that Payson has dodged a, you know, potentially expensive lawsuit because the plaintiff made a mistake,” Richelsoph said.
Richelsoph said the outcome reflects the law, even though it may not seem fair.
“If you don’t follow the rules, you can end up losing, not because you have a bad case, you may have a great case, but because you didn’t follow the rules,” Richelsoph said.
Arizona’s Family asked what the ruling means for the future of the lawsuit.
“Well, the lawsuit itself is dead because they can’t go back in time. You know, the 180 days has already passed since the event,” Richelsoph said.
More than three years after the K-9 attack, the court battle is over because of the way the claim was filed. Terborg was contacted but did not respond.
See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.
Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.
Read more Why Arizona’s falling drug seizures are sparking a fentanyl debate