Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center, LLC (July 30, 2019, No. G056249) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2019 WL 3422610], certified for publication Aug. 28, 2019
After a brief hospitalization, Irene Lopez was readmitted to Bartlett Care Center, a skilled nursing facility, with numerous medical issues, including dementia. Several days later, Irene’s daughter, Jasmine Lopez, signed a two-page arbitration agreement above the designation for “Resident Representative/Agent Signature.” The agreement required Irene and Jasmine, in both her individual and representative capacities, to arbitrate any disputes other than claims involving collections or evictions. Irene was later hospitalized for treatment of ulcers, wet gangrene, and sepsis; she died 23 days after leaving Bartlett.
As Irene’s successor, Jasmine sued Bartlett and related entities for negligence, willful misconduct, elder abuse, and violation of the patient’s bill of rights; in her own name, Jasmine also sued for wrongful death. Bartlett petitioned to compel arbitration, presenting evidence that its employee explained the agreement to both Irene and Jasmine and that Irene gave a verbal authorization for Jasmine to execute it. Jasmine’s opposition declaration stated that Irene never authorized her to execute the arbitration agreement and disputed the circumstances of execution. The trial court denied the petition, ruling that Bartlett failed to prove that Irene had authorized Jasmine to sign the agreement on her behalf. The court further ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable against Jasmine in her individual capacity, due to procedural and substantive unconscionability. Bartlett appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling on Jasmine’s lack of agency based on her declaration. The court also held the agreement unenforceable as to Jasmine personally because (1) it was procedurally unconscionable because it was titled as an agreement between the resident and the Center and lacked adequate warnings that those signing for residents were binding themselves; and (2) it was substantively unconscionable because the evictions and collections exceptions benefited the Center exclusively, and therefore lacked mutuality.
Prepared by H. Thomas Watson and Peder K. Batalden, Horvitz & Levy, LLP
California Society for Healthcare Attorneys
1215 K Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
T 916.552.7605 | F 916.552.2607
