Valenzuela v. THC Orange County CA2/1
B314860
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Christina Valenzuela, an elderly Spanish‑speaking patient, was admitted to Kindred Hospital with serious illnesses in April 2021; she did not sign admission or consent forms and had not granted a power of attorney.
- Sandra Valenzuela, Christina’s adult daughter, consented to medical treatments for Christina and on April 18 signed Christina’s admission paperwork, which included an ADR clause requiring mediation then binding arbitration for claims arising from the hospitalization.
- Christina later sued Kindred for elder abuse alleging sexual molestation; Kindred petitioned to compel ADR based on the ADR agreement Sandra signed.
- Kindred submitted a declaration from an admissions representative asserting Sandra held herself out as having authority; Christina submitted Sandra’s declaration stating Sandra signed outside Christina’s presence, Christina never gave Sandra power of attorney, and Christina never authorized signing an arbitration agreement; Kindred did not show any prior course of dealings establishing agency.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding Kindred failed to prove Sandra had actual or ostensible authority to bind Christina; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sandra had actual or ostensible authority to bind Christina to the ADR agreement | Sandra lacked express authorization or POA; her silence/acquiescence to treatment does not show agency | Sandra held herself out as authorized; Christina’s acceptance of care authorized by Sandra and lack of objection created ostensible authority | The record does not compel a finding Sandra had ostensible or actual authority; trial court correctly denied petition |
| Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts application of state ostensible‑agency principles | State ostensible‑agency rules are neutral and apply to all agreements | FAA prevents singling out arbitration agreements or applying rules that disfavour arbitration | FAA does not preempt neutral ostensible‑agency principles; applying them here does not single out arbitration agreements (Clark distinguished) |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, 37 Cal.App.5th 1076 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (silence by principal insufficient to create ostensible authority absent prior course of conduct)
- Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC, 148 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (agency cannot be created by the agent’s conduct alone; principal’s conduct is required)
- Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (U.S. 2017) (state rules that covertly disfavor arbitration are preempted by the FAA)
- Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center, LLC, 39 Cal.App.5th 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (authority to bind patient to arbitration presents factual question reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Kern, 218 Cal.App.4th 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (when appellant bears the burden, review asks whether evidence compels a contrary finding)