With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 991 P.2d at 252. Because the common fund doctrine is a rule of equity, however, it will not be applied if a statute precludes apportionment of attorneys’ fees. Id. ¶ 8 Section 12-962 does not permit the apportionment of attorneys’ fees and costs under Wang’s circumstances. The State’s reimbursement claim for the reasonable value of the medical care and treatment under § 12-962(A) is limited to the amount of money that the injured person has “received” in settlement of the tort claim that gave rise to the need for medical care and treatment. A.R.S. § 12-962(B)(3). Wang’s attorneys’ fees and costs were not “received” for purposes of § 12-962(B)(3) because they were deducted from the settlement before any funds were disbursed to him. See Cox, 222 Ariz. at 279, ¶¶ 36-37, 213 P.3d at 716 (<HOLDING>); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1140 (5th ed.

A: holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees
B: holding that bank was entitled to attorney fees on appeal when agreement did not prohibit such fees
C: holding that money received in settlement refers to the injured persons net recovery after paying attorney fees and costs a client does not receive attorneys fees under the statute because a lawyer has a claim to such fees as soon as a settlement agreement is reached
D: holding that the entirety of litigation settlement proceeds was taxable income to client not net after payment of attorney fees
C.