Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (Apr. 16, 2024, B323237) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2024 WL 2106000], ordered published May 10, 2024
Following the death of her son at Silverscreen Healthcare, a skilled nursing facility, Holland alleged survivor claims on her son’s behalf, as well as a wrongful death claim as an heir. Silverscreen moved to compel arbitration pursuant to its agreement with the son. The agreement stated it was binding on the son’s executors, family, and heirs and it required arbitration of all medical malpractice disputes and other claims involving the provision of care to a resident, including actions for injury or death arising from negligence, intentional torts, and/or statutory causes of action. The agreement also stated that the trial court had no discretion to deny arbitration due to a pending third party claim. The trial court agreed that the claims Holland made on her son’s behalf were subject to arbitration, but—relying on Avila v. Southern Cal. Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835—the court ruled that the wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration because it was based on Elder Abuse Act neglect, rather than medical malpractice. Silverscreen appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. Relying on Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, the court explained that Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 is intended to permit patients who sign arbitration agreements to bind their heirs in wrongful death actions. The court held that the wrongful death cause of action sounded in professional negligence, not dependent adult abuse as the parents claimed. Indeed, while a successor in interest can pursue a decedent’s Elder Abuse Act claim, the heirs pursuing a wrongful death claim cannot. Since the arbitration agreement complied with section 1295 and was intended to bind the resident’s heirs, the trial court erred by failing to order the wrongful death claim to arbitration.
