Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Grp., LLC

• Decision Date: 02 July 2019
• Docket Number: C080940
• Parties: Roy VALENTINE, Individually and as Administrator, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PLUM HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

37 Cal.App.5th 1076

249 Cal.Rptr.3d 905

Roy VALENTINE, Individually and as Administrator, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.PLUM HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

C080940

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed July 2, 2019

Williams Iagmin, Jon Robert Williams, San Diego, for Defendants and Appellants.

The Law Office, Edward P. Dudensing, Sacramento, and Kerri A. Rollins for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

HULL, J.

The owners and operators of a skilled nursing facility contend the trial court erred when it denied their petition to compel arbitration. They attempted to enforce arbitration in this action for elder abuse and wrongful death brought by a decedent through her husband as successor in interest, her husband individually, and their children. Appellants claimed the successor had signed the arbitration agreements as the decedent's authorized agent. The trial court determined that although the successor did not sign the agreements as the decedent's agent, he expressly bound himself to arbitrate all claims he held individually and as the successor in interest. As a result, the decedent's claim for elder abuse and the husband's individual claim for wrongful death were subject to arbitration. However, the court denied the petition because the children's claims were not subject to arbitration, and allowing the arbitration and the litigation to proceed concurrently could result in inconsistent findings of fact and law.

We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A. Signing the arbitration agreements

Defendants Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, and White Fir Holdings, LLC, own and operate Midtown Oaks Post-Acute (Midtown), a skilled nursing facility. On January 13, 2014, Lila Valentine was admitted to Midtown for "rehab" after she fell and broke her right shoulder. The admission records identified Lila's daughter, Darleen Valentine, as Lila's responsible party and Lila's husband, Roy Valentine, as an emergency contact and the primary financial contact.

On January 15, 2014, Juillet Winter, Midtown's admission coordinator, contacted Darleen about the signing of the admission documents. Winter said Lila was unable to sign the documents "due to her shoulder injury and her episodes of confusion." Darleen told Winter she was not in the area and to have her father, Roy, sign the papers.

On January 19, 2014, Roy signed the admission documents, including two arbitration agreements. Lila was present when Roy signed the papers, and she did not object to him signing the arbitration agreements on her behalf.

Roy recalled signing some documents when Lila was admitted to Midtown. A person from the facility told him he needed to sign some admission forms for his wife. The person did not say what the forms were, that they involved arbitration, or that there was a choice in the signing of the documents. The person never asked Roy if Lila was capable of signing the documents or discussed with him that the documents needed to be signed by Lila if she was capable. Roy asserts that had this issue been raised, he "certainly would have told" the facility employee that Lila was capable of making her own health care decisions.

While Roy signed the papers, it appeared to him that Lila was not aware of, or involved in, the process. The person from the facility never told Lila anything about the paperwork, and she did not ask Lila to sign the documents. The person never asked Lila if it was okay for Roy to sign the admission documents for her. Roy did not read the paperwork, nor did he talk to Lila about it.

Roy signed two arbitration agreements; one for arbitrating medical malpractice claims and the second for arbitrating all other claims, including wrongful death and elder abuse. Both agreements state they are binding on the parties and the parties' "heirs, representatives, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns[.]"

In addition, both agreements contain a clause that attempts to bind the resident's representative to arbitrate the resident's claims and the representative's individual claims if the representative signs the agreement instead of the resident. The clause reads: "By the signing [of] this agreement the resident intends to express that I have full authority to act as the resident's agent in making healthcare decisions for the resident. I have full and express authority as the resident's agent to waive the resident's right to a jury trial and enter into this arbitration agreement. I agree that any claims that I may have as a successor in interest, heir, or representative of the resident or as an individual will be subject to the binding arbitration agreement set forth in this contract." In both agreements, Roy signed his name immediately following this paragraph as Lila's representative.

Each agreement also authorized the resident and the resident's representative to rescind the agreement within 30 days of execution.

Lila did not sign either agreement.

B. Lila's care¹

Upon admission to Midtown, Lila was oriented and functional. She was continent of urine and bowel. Prior to her admission, she lived independently at home with Roy.

On March 13, 2014, two months after admission, Lila began exhibiting symptoms of a urinary tract infection

. Treatment was not started until four days later, March 17.

A month later, on April 15, 2014, the urinary tract symptoms recurred, and it was noted she had "increased confusion" with her symptoms. Antibiotic treatment was not started for two days until April 17.

On May 2, 2014, Lila again complained of urinary tract infection

symptoms. Urinalysis test results received two days later showed "mixed flora" bacteria. However, Midtown staff did not treat the infection and did not monitor Lila.

One week later, on May 9, 2014, Lila had loose stool and complained of a stomach ache. The treating nurse took no steps to determine what was causing Lila's symptoms. Instead, she wrote in Lila's chart that the loose stool "didn't smell like a c. diff," knowing a urinary tract infection

with "c. diff" could not be diagnosed merely by smelling stool. Although Lila's symptoms were a "patent sign" of sepsis, staff gave her a narcotic painkiller and Imodium for diarrhea without attempting to determine whether Lila had an infection. For the rest of the weekend, the nursing staff did not monitor Lila's symptoms even though her condition changed.

On May 11, 2014, Lila had a fever of 100.5 degrees at 2:20 p.m., which subsided to 100 degrees by 7:00 p.m. The staff ordered laboratory tests. The results came back by 10:10 p.m. that evening, but the nurses simply "endorsed" the results to the night shift. At 1:39 a.m., May 12, 2014, Lila's family asked about the lab results. The physician's assistant then ordered a shot of antibiotics. No one monitored Lila's conditions.

No further entry was made in Lila's medical chart until approximately 10 hours later at 11:29 a.m., when the director of nurses wrote a note about roommate compatibility. Lila's condition changed, but again no one monitored her. Despite her symptoms of sepsis and complaints of abdominal pain, staff did not call an ambulance until approximately 12:30 p.m. after they found Lila looking "acutely ill."

Lila arrived by ambulance at Sutter General Hospital at 12:50 p.m. She was in septic shock

, but Sutter staff failed to examine her timely or treat her for sepsis. They did not administer antibiotics for several hours. Despite Lila's abnormal blood pressure and heart rate, Sutter nurses did not notify any physician of Lila's deteriorating condition, monitor Lila, or care for her over a six-and-a-half-hour period. Lila went into cardiac arrest three times before she was pronounced dead at 3:30 a.m., May 13, 2014.

C. This action

Roy, as Lila's successor in interest and in his individual capacity, Darleen, and two additional children, Eileen Tworoger and Randy Valentine, filed this action. As successor in interest, Roy asserted causes of action against defendants for elder abuse ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq. ) and violation of the Patients' Bill of Rights ( Health & Saf. Code, § 1430, subd. (b) ; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 72527 ). Roy in his individual capacity and Darleen, Eileen, and Randy asserted causes of action for wrongful death caused by reckless neglect and abuse. Darleen also alleged a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.²

Defendants petitioned the trial court to compel arbitration. The court found the arbitration agreements were valid as to Roy, but it ultimately denied the petition. The agreements were valid as to Roy not because he was Lila's agent, but because when he signed them, he expressly agreed that any claims he had as a successor in interest and as an individual would be subject to binding arbitration. The court found Roy "did not sign those agreements as Lila's representative or agent in an attempt to bind Lila." Even if he had, that fact according to the court would be immaterial since Lila through her estate was not asserting any claims on her own behalf. Roy agreed to arbitrate "his own claims as a successor in interest."

The court, however, found the arbitration agreements were not binding on the children's wrongful death claims. None of the children signed the agreements, and Lila could not bind them to arbitrate their claims. Under the rule of Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 841, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 263, 237 P.3d 584 ( Ruiz ), as applied by this court in Bush v. Horizon West (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 924, 929, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 258, a patient of a skilled nursing facility can bind her heirs to arbitrate wrongful death claims arising only from medical malpractice, but not from elder abuse. The children did not allege medical malpractice or professional negligence.

Even though the court determined that Roy's successor and individual claims were subject to arbitration, it denied the petition to compel. It foresaw the possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law...