Horn v. Cooke

• Decision Date: 09 November 1982
• Docket Number: Docket No. 57596
• Parties: Marcella F. HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Weldon J. COOKE, M.D., M.S. Zaman, M.D., Southwestern Medical Clinic, P.C., a Michigan professional corporation, and County of Berrien, d/b/a Berrien General Hospital, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 558

325 N.W.2d 558

118 Mich.App. 740

Marcella F. HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Weldon J. COOKE, M.D., M.S. Zaman, M.D., Southwestern

Medical Clinic, P.C., a Michigan professional corporation,

and County of Berrien, d/b/a Berrien General Hospital,

jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 57596.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 7, 1982.

Decided Aug. 24, 1982.

Released for Publication Nov. 9, 1982.

Charfoos, Christensen, Gilbert & Archer, P.C. by John A. Obee and J. Douglas Peters, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bennett, Lewis, LaParl, Hollander, Stephens & Milligan, P.C. by Richard A. Milligan and James M. Marquardt, Kalamazoo, for defendants-appellees Weldon J. Cooke and Southwestern Medical Clinic, P.C.

Best, Arnold, Gleeson & Best, P.C. by Anne L. Heyns, Jackson, for defendant-appellee Berrien County.

Before WALSH, P.J., and ALLEN and GILLESPIE, ^* JJ.

ALLEN, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this medical malpractice action after undergoing abdominal surgery on January 11, 1978. Defendants Weldon Cooke, Southwestern Medical Clinic, and Berrien County moved for accelerated judgment, claiming the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter as plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement before surgery and there had been no timely revocation of the agreement. The Berrien County Circuit Court granted the motion on December 22, 1980, and we granted plaintiff's delayed application for leave to appeal on July 16, 1981.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that on October 10, 1977, she consulted with defendant Cooke, complaining of pain in her right side, and he diagnosed pelvic inflammatory disease. On December 13, 1977, plaintiff underwent a rectal fistulectomy. The pain persisted and on January 5, 1978, Dr. Cooke scheduled an abdominal hysterectomy. Five days later, plaintiff entered Berrien General Hospital and signed a consent form for an abdominal hysterectomy and an arbitration agreement. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Cooke told her he intended to remove "one ovary and one tube", yet proceeded to perform an unconsented-to appendectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, and anterior cystourethopexy, as well as a complete hysterectomy. Plaintiff sued Dr. Cooke, the clinic in which he was employed, and the hospital for battery, failure of informed consent, negligence, and fraud and deceit. Plaintiff also named as a defendant Dr. M.S. Zaman, claiming he performed unnecessary repair surgery in March 1978. The action against Dr. Zaman is not involved in this appeal.

Dr. Cooke answered, stating that plaintiff had fully consented to the entire abdominal surgery. The motion for accelerated judgment asserted that the claims were also barred by the arbitration agreement plaintiff executed on the day before surgery and which plaintiff had not attempted to revoke until July 17, 1979, approximately one and one-half years after the surgery. In her answer, plaintiff argued that defendant Cooke misrepresented the nature of the surgery. Plaintiff asked the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on her claim that the arbitration agreement had been fraudulently induced, but the court refused, finding the arbitration agreement valid on its face.

An arbitration agreement is a contract whereby all the parties thereto agree to forego their rights to proceed with a court action and, instead, to submit their disputes to a panel of arbiters. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist. No. 6 v. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass'n, 393 Mich. 583, 587, 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975). The first inquiry into the arbitrability of a dispute is to determine whether an arbitration agreement has been reached by the parties. Whitehouse v. Hoskins Manufacturing Co., 113 Mich.App. 138, 317 N.W.2d 320 (1982). No contract to arbitrate can arise except on the expressed mutual assent of the parties. Brown v. Considine, 108 Mich.App. 504, 507, 310 N.W.2d 441 (1981). A party cannot be required to arbitrate an issue he has not agreed to submit to arbitration. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist. No. 6, supra; Lanting v. Jenison Public Schools, 103 Mich.App. 165, 302 N.W.2d 631 (1981).

The determination of whether an arbitration contract exists is for the courts to decide, applying general contract principles. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson, supra; Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins. Exchange v. Straw, 96 Mich.App. 773, 777, 293 N.W.2d 704 (1980), GCR 1963, 769.2.

If a signature to an arbitration agreement is obtained by coercion, the agreement, like any contract, is void or at least voidable due to duress. Brown v. Siang, 107 Mich.App. 91, 108, 309 N.W.2d 575 (1981); Capman v. Harper-Grace Hospital, 96 Mich.App. 510, 514, 294 N.W.2d 205 (1980). Defendants attempt to distinguish Capman on the ground it involved a violation of the Medical Malpractice Arbitration Act, M.C.L. Sec. 600.5040 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5040 et seq. While it is true that the alleged coercion in Capman also constituted a statutory violation (the patient claimed that she was told she would receive no treatment until she signed the agreement), the Court's reasoning was clear and explicit:

"The existence of a coercive atmosphere which undermines the free will of one of the parties can vitiate an otherwise valid contract * * * [I]f defendant did precondition plaintiff Maryann Capman's health care upon her signing the arbitration agreement, her free will might have been undermined and she might have been improperly coerced." Capman, supra, 96 Mich.App. 515, 294 N.W.2d 205.

We agree with the Capman panel that an arbitration agreement signed as a result of force or coercion does not bind the parties.

In her complaint and in her answer to defendants' motion for accelerated judgment, plaintiff raised a fact question as to whether her consent to arbitrate had been obtained by a fraudulent misrepresentation as to the scope of the surgery to be performed. If this misinformation was in fact given with the intention of inducing the plaintiff to agree to arbitrate and this information was relied upon by the plaintiff when she made the determination to arbitrate, the agreement may be set aside as having been fraudulently obtained.

We observe that the question raised by plaintiff is not whether the surgery performed exceeded the scope of the surgery agreed upon. Were this the issue before us, it would clearly be subject to arbitration, M.C.L. Sec. 600.5040(1); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5040(1). Here, however, plaintiff claims that she was induced to arbitrate because of the alleged misrepresentation as to the scope of the surgery. In order to avoid the arbitration agreement, plaintiff must both establish that Dr. Cooke made a misrepresentation, and show that she relied upon it in making the decision to arbitrate, and was harmed thereby.

We find it necessary to remand to permit the trial court to take additional testimony on this subject. If the court finds that the agreement was induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation, the agreement should be voided.

Plaintiff raises the additional claim that she was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the arbitration agreement due to her limited ability to read and her fears regarding the surgery, as well as defendants' failure to explain the agreement to her.

Plaintiff was waiving her right to a trial of any dispute before a court; this right was clearly and unambiguously stated in the arbitration agreement. The agreement also stated that the signatory read or had read to her the agreement and fully understood its contents. We note that plaintiff had contemplated the surgery for some time, had undergone a similar operation approximately one month before, and had signed an agreement to arbitrate at that time. She therefore had ample time to consider the arbitration agreement and its ramifications away from the hospital environment. Moreover, she had the opportunity of twice having the agreement read to her before she signed it. For a patient, even one facing surgery with a great deal of apprehension, these safeguards are sufficient to find that the patient had knowingly waived the right to trial. Cushman v. Frankel, 111 Mich.App. 604, 608, 314 N.W.2d 705 (1981). Here, unlike the situation in Cushman, supra, plaintiff raises the additional claim that her semiliterate status prevented her from understanding the contents of the agreement that she signed. We do not believe that plaintiff should be allowed to avoid the agreement because of her own negligence in signing a...