Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (Aug. 14, 2025, S285429) __ Cal.5th __ [2025 WL 2349863]
Following the death of their son at a skilled nursing facility operated by Silverscreen Healthcare, plaintiffs sued Silverscreen, alleging survivor claims on their son’s behalf as well as a wrongful death claim as heirs. Silverscreen moved to compel arbitration pursuant to its agreement with the son. The agreement stated it was binding on the son’s representatives, executors, family, and heirs and it required arbitration of all medical malpractice disputes and other claims involving the provision of care to a resident. The trial court agreed that plaintiffs’ survivor claims were subject to arbitration, but—relying on Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.4th 835, 843—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, and the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for review.
The Supreme Court announced a new test and remanded for further proceedings. The Court acknowledged that, as a general rule, plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate their disputes if they have not previously agreed to arbitration. The Court explained that Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 identified a narrow exception for certain wrongful death claims based on medical malpractice: if a patient agreed to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes in compliance with MICRA’s arbitration provision (Code Civ. Proc., § 1295), the agreement may bind the patient’s heirs in a wrongful death action, even if they never agreed to arbitration. The key question is whether a wrongful death claim sounds in professional negligence against a medical provider. The Court acknowledged that deciding that question is difficult when the defendant is a skilled nursing facility, which “wears multiple hats, rendering services in its capacity as a medical provider as well as in its capacity as custodian of residents’ general well-being, which includes responsibilities such as providing nutrition and hydration.” The test, the Court stated, is “whether ‘the primary basis for the wrongful death claim sounds in’ medical malpractice or in custodial neglect.” Here, the Court could not apply the test at this stage because “there remains substantial uncertainty about whether plaintiffs seek to challenge the defendants’ provision of medical care, its provision of custodial care, or both.” Accordingly, the Court remanded to give plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint.
