As a general rule, plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate their disputes if they have not previously agreed to
arbitration. But in Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz), the California Supreme Court identified an exception for certain wrongful death claims based on medical malpractice. If a patient agreed to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes in compliance with the arbitration provision of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) (codified as Code Civ. Proc., § 1295), the patient-provider agreement may bind the patient’s heirs in a wrongful death action, even if the heirs themselves never agreed to arbitration.
The question before the California Supreme Court in a recent case concerned the application of Ruiz in a recurring context. Plaintiffs sued a 24-hour skilled nursing facility, alleging that the facility’s neglect caused their son’s death. Before his death, plaintiffs’ son had signed an agreement to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes against the facility.
The California Court of Appeal held that the patient-provider agreement binds plaintiffs because their wrongful death claim based on the nursing facility’s neglect is necessarily a claim about the manner in which a health care provider rendered its professional services.
The California Supreme Court held that the California Court of Appeal’s decision extended Ruiz past statutory bounds. Ruiz does not apply to every type of wrongful death claim that might be brought against a health care provider — particularly a provider that, like the skilled nursing facility in the case it was deciding, provides both medical care and day-to-day custodial care of dependent adults. Under Ruiz, plaintiffs’ claim must be submitted to arbitration only if they are raising a dispute about medical malpractice as that term is defined in MICRA’s arbitration provision — that is,
a dispute “ ‘as to whether any medical services . . . were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered.’ ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1295, subd. (a) (§ 1295(a)).) Ruiz does not require plaintiffs to arbitrate their disputes about a facility’s neglect of a resident’s basic welfare and safety needs.
The California Supreme Court held that to the extent the plaintiffs’ complaint in the case it was deciding fails to
detail whether they are alleging deficiencies in the nursing facility’s rendering of medical services or instead in its provision of custodial care, they should be permitted to amend their complaint to specify. Therefore, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeal and remanded for further proceedings.
Source Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., S285429.
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, nursing home wrongful death, 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.
