the Rules provisions subject to the APA remanded to the Commission with instructions to submit those provisions for attorney general review, and affirmed the remainder. The Cooperatives assert that because these provisions were invalid, nothing remained to remand. ¶ 139 The Cooperatives cite Carondelet Health Servs., Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 182 Ariz. 221, 895 P.2d 133 (App.1994), and Cochise County v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 170 Ariz. 443, 825 P.2d 968 (App.1991), to support their contention. But neither ease addressed whether an agency decision adopting rules could be reversed and remanded for compliance with the APA. Rather, each case voided actions taken pursuant to invalid rules. Carondelet, 182 Ariz. at 228, 895 P.2d at 140 (<HOLDING>); Cochise County, 170 Ariz. at 445, 825 P.2d at
holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care holding applications of invalid rule promulgated by state health care system to establish methodology for calculating hospital reimbursement rates void holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim