Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Grp., LLC
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 905
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Lila Valentine was admitted to a skilled nursing facility in January 2014; her husband Roy signed admission forms (including two arbitration agreements) while Lila was present but did not sign. The agreements included language purporting to bind the resident, heirs, successors, and a resident representative who signed in place of the resident.
- Roy signed beneath a paragraph stating a representative has authority to waive the resident's jury right and that any claims the representative had as successor or individually would be subject to arbitration. Lila did not sign or rescind the agreements.
- Lila deteriorated and died in May 2014; plaintiffs (Roy as successor and individually, and three children including Darleen) sued for elder abuse and wrongful death against the facility owners/operators.
- Defendants petitioned to compel arbitration. The trial court found Roy’s own and successor claims were arbitrable (based on his express agreement) but concluded Roy did not sign as Lila’s agent and the children were not bound.
- The trial court denied the petition under Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2(c) because compelling arbitration for Roy but allowing the children to litigate created a realistic possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues; the court’s denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roy signed the arbitration agreements as Lila’s authorized agent, thereby binding Lila/estate/heirs | Roy/plaintiffs argued Roy did not purport to bind Lila as her agent (or contested capacity/authority) and thus children are not bound | Defendants argued Roy signed as Lila’s agent/representative and therefore bound Lila and her heirs | Court held substantial evidence supports trial court finding Roy did not sign as Lila’s agent (no actual or ostensible authority shown); Roy bound himself but not Lila/children |
| Whether the children’s wrongful death claims are subject to arbitration under Ruiz (heirs bound for malpractice-based wrongful death) | Plaintiffs: children’s wrongful death claims are not within arbitration because they allege causes (elder abuse/wrongful death) not purely medical malpractice | Defendants: under Ruiz and related cases, a resident (or agent) can bind heirs to arbitrate wrongful death arising from professional negligence; children’s claims are malpractice-based and thus arbitrable | Court held children’s claims are not bound because Roy did not bind Lila as principal/agent; Ruiz does not apply absent agent/principal relationship |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying to compel arbitration under CCP §1281.2(c) when third-party claims proceed in court | Plaintiffs: court should exercise discretion to refuse arbitration to avoid inconsistent rulings and preserve efficient resolution | Defendants: because all plaintiffs’ claims are arbitrable (except limited ones), court lacked discretion to deny or should at least stay litigation pending arbitration | Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny enforcement under §1281.2(c) because third-party (children) non-arbitrable claims presented a possibility of conflicting rulings on common fact/law issues |
| Admissibility and weight of defendants’ POLST evidence offered to show prior authorization for Roy to sign | Plaintiffs: objected to POLST; no foundation or authentication; new evidence on reply improper | Defendants: POLST shows prior instance where resident asked husband to sign, supporting agency/authority | Court held the POLST evidence was improperly admitted on reply and lacked foundation, so it was not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Podolsky, 50 Cal.4th 838 (California Supreme Court 2010) (patient or agent can bind heirs to arbitrate wrongful-death claims arising from medical malpractice)
- Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services, 35 Cal.4th 376 (California Supreme Court 2005) (§ 1281.2(c) addresses disputes affecting nonbound third parties)
- Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, 15 Cal.4th 951 (California Supreme Court 1997) (burden and procedure on petitions to compel arbitration)
- Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC, 148 Cal.App.4th 581 (California Court of Appeal 2007) (when a nonparty may be bound by a health-care arbitration agreement; agency and representative distinctions)
- Goldman v. SunBridge Healthcare, LLC, 220 Cal.App.4th 1160 (California Court of Appeal 2013) (agency/representation analysis in health-care arbitration disputes)