McKinstry v. Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, P.C.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 7-8,OBSTETRICS-GYNECOLOGY,78140,Docket Nos. 77531,s. 7-8 |
| Citation | 428 Mich. 167,405 N.W.2d 88 |
| Parties | Kathleen Louise McKINSTRY, Thomas McKinstry and Kathleen McKinstry, Next Friend of Amanda McKinstry, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VALLEYCLINIC, P.C. and Saginaw General Hospital, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees. Robert L. GUERTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Basil MARRELLA, D.P.M., Thomas Bauder, D.P.M., and Hutzel Hospital-Warren Division, Formerly McNamara Community Hospital, Defendants-Appellants, and Howard Wagenberg, Defendant. Calendar |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Sharon S. Lutz, Charfoos & Christensen, P.C., Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Colista, Urso, Adams and Dettmer, P.C. by Constance J. Allen, Detroit, for plai ntiff-appellee.
McGraw & Borchard, P.C. by Patrick J. McGraw, Saginaw, for defendant-appellee Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, Only.
Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney, P.C., Detroit by Stephen M. Kelley, Susan Healy Zitterman, for defendant-appellee Saginaw General Hosp. only.
Kerr, Russell and Weber by Richard D. Weber, Louis G. Corey, Detroit, for amicus curiae Michigan State Medical Society.
Franklin, Bigler, Berry & Johnston, P.C. by Lisa C. DeGryse, Troy, for defendants-appellants, Dr. Bauder and Hutzel Hosp.
Vandeveer, Garzia, Tonkin, Kerr, Heaphy, Moore, Sills & Poling, P.C. by Robert D. Brignall, Detroit, for defendant-appellant Dr. Basil Marrella.
Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, Erlich, Rosen and Bartnick by Richard E. Shaw, Detroit, Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
The two cases before us are representative of a conflict that exists in this state among courts as well as litigants. The principal issue is usually posed in terms of who must bear the "burden of proof" in establishing the validity (or invalidity) of an arbitration agreement signed pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Arbitration Act, M.C.L. Sec. 600.5041 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5041 et seq. (MMAA).
Because the Legislature in fashioning the MMAA took pains to declare that an arbitration agreement which conforms to the statute's requirements "shall be presumed valid," 1 we believe the underlying question may be recast as follows:
"What is the evidentiary effect of this statutory presumption upon the respective burdens of the parties in a suit for malpractice where jurisdiction is challenged on the ground that claims involved must be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the MMAA?"
We hold that the burden of establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement that conforms to the strict requirements of the statute rests with the party seeking to enforce the agreement. Once prima facie evidence of such an agreement has been presented, the statutory presumption of validity accrues, and the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut the presumption then shifts to the party seeking to avoid the agreement.
We are also asked to decide in McKinstry whether the parent of an unborn child can bind the child, after birth, to arbitrate disputes which arise out of the prenatal care and delivery of the child. We answer the question in the affirmative.
We begin our analysis with a review of the facts and procedural background of the two cases involved in this appeal.
On October 17, 1978, plaintiff Kathleen (Mrs. Thomas) McKinstry was admitted to Saginaw General Hospital by employees of Valley Obstetrics- Gynecology Clinic, P.C. She was suffering from a pregnancy complication, the symptoms of which included high blood pressure, headaches, dizziness, and the appearance of spots before her eyes. Upon admission to the hospital, Mrs. McKinstry signed two arbitration agreements, one in her name, and one in the name of "Baby or Babies McKinstry." During her hospital stay, Mrs. McKinstry gave birth to a daughter, Amanda, who suffered a shoulder and arm injury known as Erb's Palsy. After she and Amanda were discharged from the hospital, Mrs. McKinstry did not revoke either of the arbitration agreements within the sixty-day period provided for by the agreements and M.C.L. Sec. 600.5042(3); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.5042(3). Plaintiff Thomas McKinstry was not a party to the agreements.
On February 27, 1980, plaintiffs Kathleen McKinstry, Thomas McKinstry, and Kathleen McKinstry as next friend of Amanda McKinstry, a minor, filed a complaint in Saginaw Circuit Court against Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, P.C. and Saginaw General Hospital, seeking damages arising out of the alleged negligent delivery of Amanda McKinstry. Motions by the defendants for accelerated judgment on the basis of the two arbitration agreements were granted by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for trial, holding that the MMAA was unconstitutional because the statutory agreement form failed to advise patients adequately as to how the arbitration panel would be selected. See McKinstry v. Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, PC 120 Mich.App. 479, 327 N.W.2d 507 (1982), vacated and remanded, 419 Mich. 873, 348 N.W.2d 8 (1984).
The Court vacated that judgment in light of Morris v. Metriyakool, 418 Mich. 423, 344 N.W.2d 736 (1984), and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of other issues raised by plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals then remanded the case to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant hospital had complied with the statutory mandates of the MMAA when offering the arbitration agreements to Mrs. McKinstry.
Such a hearing was held, and the trial court found that the signed arbitration agreements were valid on their faces and that plaintiffs had failed in their burden to avoid the agreements.
This case was then returned to the Court of Appeals, and that Court upheld the trial court's grant of accelerated judgment for defendants. McKinstry v. Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, P.C. (After Remand), 146 Mich.App. 307, 380 N.W.2d 93 (1985). Upon application, leave was granted to appeal to this Court.
The plaintiff Robert Guertin underwent corrective foot surgery in December, 1979, at Hutzel Hospital-Warren Division. In April, 1983, plaintiff filed the instant suit against defendants Basil Marrella, D.P.M., Thomas Bauder, D.P.M., and Hutzel Hospital--Warren Division because of his dissatisfaction with the surgical results. The defendants moved for accelerated judgment or, in the alternative, for an order compelling arbitration on the basis of a December 12, 1979, arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiff.
An evidentiary hearing was held to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement. At the outset, the trial court ruled that the agreement must be presumed valid since it conformed to the statutory requirements. Later, the trial court found that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence that the agreement had been the product of fraud or misrepresentation and ordered arbitration. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had improperly placed upon plaintiff the burden of proving the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Guertin v. Marrella, 149 Mich.App. 420, 385 N.W.2d 805 (1986). The case was remanded for further proceedings because the Court of Appeals could not say "that, had the burden been properly placed with the defendant, the ruling of the trial court would have been the same." Id., p. 424, 385 N.W.2d 805.
Defendants then applied for, and this Court granted, leave to appeal.
Sections 5041 and 5042 of the MMAA provide that a "health care provider" may, and a "hospital" must, offer to arbitrate disputes arising from the provision of health care. In order to be enforceable under the MMAA, the offer must be made in compliance with the following statutory conditions: 2
(1) The offer to arbitrate must be in writing;
(2) The offer, if accepted by the patient, must, for sixty days, be revocable in writing;
(3) The agreement must state, above the signature line in twelve-Point boldface type: "THIS AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO HEALTH CARE OR TREATMENT AND MAY BE REVOKED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER EXECUTION BY NOTIFICATION IN WRITING" TO ______;
(4) The patient must be given a booklet detailing the specific provisions of the arbitration agreement;
(5) The patient must be given a copy of the arbitration agreement; and
(6) The offer to arbitrate must not precede the provision of emergency medical care. M.C.L. Secs. 600.5041, 600.5042; M.S.A. Secs. 27A.5041, 27A.5042.
As already noted, the Legislature took care to provide that an agreement to arbitrate which conforms to the statute's requirements "shall be presumed valid." M.C.L. Secs. 600.5041(7), 600.5042(8); M.S.A. Secs. 27A.5041(7), 27A.5042(8). 3
Plaintiffs in the cases before us argue that enforcement of such an arbitration agreement would deprive them of constitutional rights to a jury trial and court access, and thus maintain that the burden should rest upon the defendants to show a valid contract. Plaintiffs cite Moore v. Fragatos, 116 Mich.App. 179, 321 N.W.2d 781 (1982), in which a panel of the Court of Appeals viewed the arbitration agreement as a waiver of a constitutional right and reasoned that existence of such a waiver is never presumed, but requires an affirmative showing that the waiver was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Moore Court placed the burden on the defendant to demonstrate by such an affirmative showing that the plaintiff had waived his rights. 4
In response, defendants contend that arbitration is a matter of contract and that one who signs a written agreement is presumed to understand it. Under the act, an agreement which conforms to statutory requirements is presumed to be valid, M.C.L. Secs. 600.5041(7), 600.5042(8); M.S.A. Secs. 27A.5041(7), 27A.5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushton v. Meijer, Inc.
...and the only waiver involved is the forum for deciding if her civil rights had been violated. McKinstry v. Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, PC, 428 Mich. 167, 405 N.W.2d 88 (1987). There is no valid reason not to enforce this contractual provision. Thus, I would hold that a just-cause e......
-
Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp.
...proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a case. McKinstry v. Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, P.C., 428 Mich. 167, 178, 405 N.W.2d 88 (1987). Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed), p 178. A secondary use of the term, however, denotes the burden of going fo......
-
Skinner v. Square D Co.
...general agreement that habit evidence is highly persuasive as proof of conduct on a particular occasion." McKinstry v. Valley Clinic, 428 Mich. 167, 182, n. 6, 405 N.W.2d 88 (1987).The Court of Appeals has held that habit evidence is admissible to prove that a decedent acted in conformity w......
-
Dean v. Chrysler Corp.
...our duty to construe a statute so as to give effect to the Legislature's intent. As stated in McKinstry v. Valley OB-GYN Clinic, P.C., 428 Mich. 167, 190-191, 405 N.W.2d 88 (1987): " 'In the interpretation of statutes, the legislative will is the all-important or controlling factor. Indeed,......