Bolanos v. Khalatian
Decision Date | 11 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. B,B |
Citation | 283 Cal.Rptr. 209,231 Cal.App.3d 1586 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Tatiana BOLANOS, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Rouben KHALATIAN, M.D., Defendant and Appellant. 048809. |
Schmid, O'Hagan, Norek & Miller, Gordon T. Ownby, Susan Schmid, La Follette, Johnson, De Haas & Fesler, Louis H. De Haas, Janice Rourke Hugener, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, Teresa J. Hermosillo and W. Glenn Cornell, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
No appearance for plaintiffs and respondents.
Appellant Rouben Khalatian, M.D., appeals from an order denying his petition to stay further proceedings and compel arbitration of the medical malpractice action instituted by respondents Inez Chavez, Jose Bolanos 1 and their child Tatiana Bolanos. In the malpractice action, it is alleged that negligent care was rendered to Inez Chavez prior to and during delivery of her child, Tatiana, by her obstetrician, Dr. Khalatian, as a result of which Tatiana sustained an injury to her arm. The first cause of action is by Tatiana for general negligence. The second and third causes of action are by Inez Chavez for general negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The fourth cause of action is by Jose Bolanos as a direct witness to the injuries caused to Tatiana.
After answering the complaint, Dr. Khalatian petitioned the court to stay the civil proceedings and to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed by Inez Chavez and Dr. Khalatian.
Dr. Khalatian's evidence at the hearing on the petition was, as follows: 2 On October 5, 1988, Inez Chavez initially visited Dr. Khalatian for obstetric care and treatment. She was approximately 25 weeks pregnant at that time. From October 5, 1988, Dr. Khalatian regularly checked the progress of her pregnancy and on December 16, 1988, delivered respondent Tatiana Bolanos. (It is alleged that sometime shortly before or during this delivery the injuries occurred.) At her initial visit on October 5, 1988, Inez Chavez was given a physician-patient arbitration agreement. Since Inez Chavez did not read English, a Spanish version of the agreement was provided to her. She signed and dated it. The agreement starts off, as follows: Immediately above the patient's signature line, the agreement has in 10-point bold red type: 3
In opposition to the petition to arbitrate, Inez Chavez declared:
The trial court denied the petition. As to Inez Chavez, the court stated it could not "say by a preponderance of the evidence or even a lower standard of convincing evidence that the waiver was executed in a knowing and intelligent fashion." As to Tatiana and Jose Bolanos, the court stated it "cannot see how an agreement for arbitration can affect third parties."
Dr. Khalatian seeks reversal of the trial court's order contending (1) "The agreement is valid and is binding on a person who fails to read it before signing it;" and (2) "[t]he agreement applies to the claims of the father and the child, though they were not signatories."
The arbitration agreement here complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 and, thereby, as a matter of public policy, "is not a contract of adhesion, nor unconscionable nor otherwise improper...." (Code Civ.Proc., § 1295, subd. (e).) "A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract." ) Code Civ.Proc., § 1281.)
Since the agreement here is not one of adhesion, the general rule, that one who signs an agreement cannot avoid its terms on the ground that he failed to read it, is applicable. (Izzi v. Mesquite Country Club (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1318, 231 Cal.Rptr. 315; Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 710, 131 Cal.Rptr. 882, 552 P.2d 1178.) When a person with the capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he may not, in the absence of fraud, coercion or excusable neglect, avoid its terms on the ground he failed to read it before signing it. (Bauer v. Jackson (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 358, 370, 93 Cal.Rptr. 43.)
We conclude that under the circumstances present here, Inez Chavez is bound by the arbitration agreement. First, we note that her declaration does not say that she could not read or understand the agreement; only that she is able to read "only limited Spanish" and that she does not remember signing it. We note also that she does not offer any evidence that she was forced or tricked into signing the agreement. Her statement that "[she] was given several documents to sign by persons at [appellant's] office before [she] could receive medical treatment," is insufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S.S. by and through Stern v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
...of equitable estoppel justify this Court holding Mrs. Stern and S.S. to the Arbitration Provision: Bolanos v. Khalatian , 231 Cal. App. 3d 1586, 1591, 283 Cal.Rptr. 209 (1991) ; Doyle v. Giuliucci , 62 Cal. 2d 606, 607-609, 43 Cal.Rptr. 697, 401 P.2d 1 (1965) ; Teel v. Aaron's, Inc. , No. 3......
-
Et. Al. v. Podolsky
...or a third party.” ( Gross, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 781, 253 Cal.Rptr. 820, italics omitted; accord, Bolanos v. Khalatian (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1591, 283 Cal.Rptr. 209.) Mormile v. Sinclair (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1508, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 725 ( Mormile ) also relied on section 1295 to c......
-
Cayanan v. Citi Holdings, Inc.
...California law, a party can be bound by an arbitration clause even if she failed to read or understand it. Bolanos v. Khalatian, 231 Cal.App.3d 1586, 283 Cal.Rptr. 209, 211 (1991) (“When a person with the capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he may not, in the absen......
-
Norcal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Newton
...language (Mormile, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1510, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 725 ["`All Claims Must Be Arbitrated'"]; Bolanos, supra, 231 Cal. App.3d at p. 1591, 283 Cal.Rptr. 209 [same] ); several included language expressly stating the contracting parties' intention to bind all parties with claims......