The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California (“California Appellate Court”) stated in its opinion filed on June 25, 2024: “Here, the extrinsic evidence assembled by Villa Mesa fails to demonstrate the required actual or ostensible agency. Villa Mesa does present strong, undisputed evidence that Cynthia had authority to make general caretaking and healthcare decisions for David. (See Prob. Code, §§ 4711−4712; Health & Saf. Code, § 1418.8, subd. (a)(2)(G); Civ. Code, §§ 2316–2317.) David lived with Cynthia for years and relied on her to support him. She frequently instructed nurses and other staff on how to care for David, including “when David should eat, be dressed, and what medicine he should or should not take.” She signed “the admission paperwork for [David], including consent forms for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations, bed hold informed consent, request for admission and authorization for treatment and medication, mortuary information, and an advance directive acknowledgement.” She agreed to be his “ ‘Surrogate Decision Maker,’ ” and make “ ‘preferred intensity of care decisions’ ” on his behalf, including whether to resuscitate him in the event of an emergency. But nowhere to be found is there evidence that Cynthia was in charge of David’s legal affairs.”
“Our high court’s decision in Harrod is squarely on point here. Villa Mesa’s evidence of agency is limited to evidence that Cynthia had authority as David’s surrogate or next of kin to make caretaking and healthcare decisions. There is no evidence she had power of attorney or other authority to make legal decisions, nor in particular to commit him to arbitrate his claims against Villa Mesa. Harrod thus definitively forecloses Villa Mesa’s contention that the evidence of Cynthia’s healthcare decision-making authority established she had authority over David’s legal affairs and could
agree on his behalf to binding arbitration. The trial court correctly ruled Villa Mesa failed to prove Cynthia had
actual or ostensible authority to act as David’s agent and agree to binding arbitration.”
No Ratification
“Villa Mesa claims David ratified the arbitration agreement by failing to rescind it within 30 days of its execution, as allowed by its terms. This theory for compelling arbitration fails for lack of evidence as well. “The fundamental test of ratification by conduct is whether the releasor, with full knowledge of the material facts entitling him to rescind, has engaged in some unequivocal conduct giving rise to a reasonable inference that he intended the conduct to amount to a ratification.” (Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Zimmer (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 524, 532, italics added.) Here, there is no evidence David knew the agreement existed, that Cynthia signed it, nor that it stated he had 30 days to rescind. Villa Mesa claims in the alternative that David ratified the agreement “by accepting and retaining the benefit of residing at Villa Mesa Care Center . . . with the right to compel defendant to arbitrate issues relating to his care.” But the arbitration agreement, as required by statute, was a separate, optional agreement not linked to David’s admission to Villa Mesa’s facility for treatment … Villa Mesa failed to prove David ratified the agreement.”
However, “We are unable to determine from the trial court’s minute order why it did not order Cynthia’s individual claim to arbitration. We cannot tell whether the trial court retained jurisdiction over Cynthia’s individual claim, because it found the agreement to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable, whether it determined that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), did not apply to the controversy, or whether the court retained jurisdiction as a matter of discretion to avoid conflicting rulings. Because of the multiple disputed issues of fact that must be resolved to make any one of these determinations, as well as the possibility that the trial court may have failed to make a required discretionary decision, we remand for further proceedings.”
Source Carrillo v. Sela Healthcare, Inc., D083421.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries (or worse) while a resident of a nursing home in California or in another U.S. state due to improper nursing home discharge, improper nursing home transfer, a nursing home fall, nursing home aspiration, nursing home neglect, nursing home negligence, nursing home abuse, nursing home understaffing, or the nursing home failing to properly care for a vulnerable adult, you should promptly find a nursing home claim lawyer in California or in your state who may investigate your nursing home claim for you and file a nursing home claim on your behalf or behalf of your loved one, if appropriate.
Visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice attorneys (nursing home injury attorneys) in your U.S. state who may assist you with your nursing home claim, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
