Gunderson v. Superior Court

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: KINGSLEY; JEFFERSON, Acting P.J., and DUNN
• Citation: 120 Cal.Rptr. 35,46 Cal.App.3d 138
• Parties: Ronald GUNDERSON, a minor by and through his guardian ad Litem, Diane Drake, and Diane Drake, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; ANTELOPE VALLEY MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 45467.
• Decision Date: 17 March 1975

Page 35

120 Cal.Rptr. 35 46 Cal.App.3d 138 Ronald GUNDERSON, a minor by and through his guardian ad Litem, Diane Drake, and Diane Drake, Petitioners,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent;
ANTELOPE VALLEY MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., a corporation, et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 45467. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California. March 17, 1975.
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1975.

Page 36

[46 Cal.App.3d 140] Pollock, Pollock & Fay, and Robert S. Schlifkin, Los Angeles, for petitioners.

Fidler & Bell and Michael A. Bell, Los Angeles, for real parties in interest.

Robert E. Cartwright, San Francisco, William H. Lally, Sacramento, Stephen I. Zetterberg, Claremont, Robert G. Beloud, Upland, Ned Good, Los Angeles, David B. Baum, Arne Werchick, San Francisco, Elmer Low, Pasadena, and Leonard Sacks, Pico Rivera, amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.

KINGSLEY, Associate Justice.

Petitioners brought a malpractice suit against the real parties in interest ¹ and two other defendants. As the case was proceeding, the respondents sought an order under Code Civ.Proc. § 1281,2, subd. (a), to compel arbitration pursuant to a signed agreement, which the trial court granted. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate from this Court to reverse the orders compelling arbitration and to allow the suit ultimately to proceed to trial. ²

[46 Cal.App.3d 141] On November 15, 1972, Diane Drake, mother and guardian ad litem of the minor petitioner, brought him to the office of the Antelope Valley Medical Clinic in Lancaster, California for medical treatment. At the receptionist's desk, Mrs. Drake was handed a standardized form by one of the Clinic's employees. She was requested to fill out the form and sign it at the bottom

Page 37

of the page, which she did. The form asked for such information as name, address, employer, phone number, whether the patient was insured and, if so, by whom. Below these blanks, about two-thirds of the way down the page, were two paragraphs preceded by the phrase 'Treatment and Arbitration Agreement.'

The first paragraph provided that the patient agrees to cooperate fully with the 'attending physician' in such matters as medications, proscribed regimen, and by paying all fees and charges as billed. The second paragraph, and the one which is at the heart of this dispute, provides in part as follows:

'In the event of any controversy between the PATIENT or a dependent (whether or not a minor) or the heirs-at-law or personal representative of a patient, as the case may be, and the ATTENDING PHYSICIAN (including its agents and employees), involving a claim in tort or contractual, the same shall be submitted to arbitration. Within fifteen (15) days after the PATIENT or ATTENDING PHYSICIAN shall give notice to the other of demanding arbitration of such controversy, the parties to the controversy shall each appoint an arbitrator and give notice of such appointment to the other. . . . THE PATIENT may withdraw from this agreement within 30 days from the above date by notification of his intent to do so to the ATTENDING PHYSICIAN by registered mail.'

On the same page, just below these two paragraphs were spaces for the date and the signature of the patients which had been marked with an 'X' and had been signed by Mrs. Drake as requested.

One year after this visit, on November 28, 1973, petitioners filed an action in the superior court alleging malpractice against the Antelope Valley Medical Clinic, Inc., H. E. Kicenski, M.D., Neil G. Barbour, M.D., Harvey Birsner, M.D., and Lancaster Community Hospital, of which the first three are the real parties in interest in the matter at bench. Petitioners filed a first amended complaint for damages on December 7, 1973, an answer to which was filed on January 31, 1974, by the [46 Cal.App.3d 142] respondents. In this answer, no mention was made of the existence of or intent to place reliance on any arbitration agreement. It is alleged in the petition for the order appealed from that a demand for arbitration was made on February 25, 1974, but that petitioner refused. ³ Until May 15, 1974, no further demand for arbitration was made. In the meantime, both sides participated in discovery.

Discovery on the part of petitioners consisted of filing and serving one set of interrogatories to each of the named defendants. These interrogatories were all sent on March 7, 1974.

Discovery on the part of the respondents began, however, much earlier. On January 30, 1974, the same day that they filed their answer to the first amended complaint, the Clinic filed and served interrogatories on petitioners. Significantly, these came almost one month before the respondents initially asked for arbitration. Answers to these interrogatories were sent on March 13, 1974. ⁴

On April 25, 1974, a full two...