58 Cal.App.5th 736
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Ramiro Garcia was admitted to Kindred Hospital Baldwin Park (Feb 2018) and Kindred Hospital Los Angeles (May 2018); his son Mike signed an admission packet at Baldwin Park and his wife Maria signed at Los Angeles, each signing a voluntary ADR (arbitration) agreement as Ramiro’s purported "legal representative."
- Appellants (the Kindred hospitals) petitioned to compel arbitration and relied on staff declarations (Saltonstall and Trapp) describing customary admission practice and inferring Ramiro nodded or otherwise authorized next-of-kin to sign admission documents.
- Mike and Maria submitted declarations directly contradicting the staff inferences: they said Ramiro did not authorize them to sign arbitration agreements and staff did not explain or call attention to the ADR agreements.
- Trial court denied the petition, concluding appellants failed to prove Ramiro authorized Mike or Maria to sign arbitration agreements on his behalf; the court applied agency principles requiring principal conduct to create agency and relied on Flores v. Evergreen.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the trial court discriminated against arbitration in violation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that Kindred compels enforcement when agents sign admission paperwork.
- Court of Appeal affirmed: substantial evidence supported the denial, and applying general agency/contract defenses to arbitration agreements did not violate the FAA or Kindred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maria) | Defendant's Argument (Kindred) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a signed ADR agreement by family binds the patient | Hospitals failed to show Ramiro authorized family to sign arbitration agreements | Family signatures during admission establish binding ADR agreements | Denied: moving party must prove agency/authorization by principal; appellants failed to meet burden |
| Sufficiency of staff declarations based on custom/habit to prove authorization | Such declarations are inferential and contradicted by Mike/Maria; insufficient | Declarations of custom/habit suffice to infer patient nodded/authorized next-of-kin | Denied: declarations were contradicted and lacked weight (no firsthand recollection) |
| Whether authority to sign other admission documents implies authority to sign arbitration agreements | Signing other forms does not prove consent to arbitration specifically | If agent could sign admission paperwork, that authority extends to ADR forms (invoking Kindred) | Denied: agency must be shown as to the arbitration agreement; signing other docs alone insufficient |
| Whether applying agency law here improperly disfavors arbitration under the FAA/Kindred | Application of generally applicable agency rules is permissible and not discriminatory | Trial court applied a stricter evidentiary rule targeted at arbitration (FAA preemption) | Denied: court applied generally applicable contract/agency law; no FAA violation; Kindred does not preempt such rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421 (U.S. Supreme Court) (FAA preempts rules that single out arbitration but permits generally applicable contract defenses)
- Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC, 148 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal. Ct. App.) (admission-process signatures by family do not prove patient consent to arbitration absent principal conduct manifesting authorization)
- Young v. Horizon West, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App.) (followed Flores; facility must show principal acted to cause belief in agent's authority)
- Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center, LLC, 39 Cal.App.5th 311 (Cal. Ct. App.) (party seeking arbitration bears burden to prove existence of valid arbitration agreement)
- Patricia A. Murray Dental Corp. v. Dentsply Internat., Inc., 19 Cal.App.5th 258 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing whether evidence compels a legal finding)