Sajjadi v. The Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills CA2/3 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/20/23 Sajjadi v. The Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
    opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
    opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    NIMA SAJJADI et al.,                                           B317554
    Plaintiffs and Respondents,                               Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No.
    v.                                                        21STCV24399
    THE REHABILITATION
    CENTRE OF BEVERLY HILLS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Audra M. Mori, Judge. Affirmed.
    Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Lann G. McIntyre,
    Daniel R. Velladao, and Kathleen M. Walker for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Gaw | Poe, Randolph Gaw, Mark Poe, and Victor Meng for
    Plaintiffs and Respondents.
    _______________________________________
    INTRODUCTION
    Defendant and appellant The Rehabilitation Centre of
    Beverly Hills (RCBH), appeals from an order denying its petition
    to compel arbitration as to the wrongful death claim brought by
    plaintiffs and respondents Nima Sajjadi, Sima Nobahar, and the
    Estate of Mahmood Sajjadi (plaintiffs). The trial court ruled that
    the wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration because it
    is primarily based on allegations of elder abuse and thus Code of
    Civil Procedure1 section 1295 does not apply to bind plaintiffs to
    the arbitration agreement signed by the decedent, Mahmood
    Sajjadi.2 We agree and affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Mahmood is the father of Nima and husband of Nobahar.
    In March of 2020, Mahmood sustained an injury to his toe that
    became infected. Although he was treated with antibiotics, his
    foot became gangrenous and was ultimately amputated at the
    Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars-Sinai). Shortly thereafter,
    Mahmood signed an advanced healthcare directive appointing
    Nima as his healthcare agent.
    In August of 2020, Mahmood was admitted to RCBH, a
    rehabilitation and skilled nursing center. The admissions
    paperwork included an arbitration agreement, which Mahmood
    and a representative of RCBH both signed. The agreement stated
    that an arbitrator would resolve any medical malpractice
    1All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil
    Procedure.
    2Because Nima and Mahmood share the same last name, we refer to
    them by their first names. No disrespect is intended.
    2
    disputes. It also stated that any dispute between Mahmood and
    RCBH or any of its employees relating to the provision of care,
    treatment or services to Mahmood at RCBH, including any action
    for injury or death arising from negligence, intentional tort
    and/or statutory causes of action would be determined by
    arbitration. The agreement further provided that it is binding on
    all parties, including representatives, executors, family members,
    and heirs who bring any claims individually or in a
    representative capacity. On the signature page, there was a
    statement pursuant to section 1295, subdivision (b), that
    provided: “NOTICE: By signing this contract you are agreeing to
    have any issue of medical malpractice decided by neutral
    arbitration and you are giving up your right to a jury or court
    trial.” (All caps removed.)
    In September 2020, Mahmood was transferred to Cedars-
    Sinai, where doctors diagnosed him with “acute renal failure
    likely due to dehydration.” Mahmood later developed a
    Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. He
    was transferred again to Cedars-Sinai on September 23 and
    October 18, and ultimately died of sepsis in December 2020.
    In June 2021, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against RCBH,
    asserting a wrongful death claim in Nima and Nobahar’s
    personal capacity and a negligence survivor claim on behalf of the
    Estate. RCBH moved to compel arbitration based on the
    agreement signed by Mahmood.
    Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an amended
    complaint, which asserted a new survivor claim for elder abuse in
    addition to the wrongful death and negligence survivor claims.
    The amended complaint alleged that Mahmood either acquired
    the MRSA infection at RCBH or the infection was exacerbated
    3
    there due to RCBH’s negligent care, that the MRSA infection or
    remnants of the gangrene infection developed into sepsis, and
    that, because of the deterioration of his condition due to RCBH’s
    inadequate care, the sepsis proved fatal. It further alleged that
    Mahmood’s hospitalization for dehydration shortly after he was
    admitted “can only be explained by the negligence of RCBH
    employees, as [keeping a patient properly hydrated] was a
    shockingly basic task that they did not accomplish.” “Another
    sign of RCBH’s negligence was that Mahmood’s family was
    always told that Mahmood was sleeping, despite the fact that his
    family deliberately called at various times of the day over many
    days,” which suggested that RCBH’s staff “likely just did not
    bother to check at all.” The amended complaint also alleged that
    “RCBH employees failed to provide appropriate medical care on
    Mahmood (given that they could not even keep him hydrated),
    which caused him to contract MRSA or exacerbate an existing
    infection during his stay at their facility.”
    With respect to the wrongful death and survivor negligence
    causes of action, the amended complaint alleged that “RCBH
    breached its duty of care because it provided inadequate care to
    Mahmood during his stay at its facility, which caused him to
    develop acute renal failure and also to acquire a MRSA infection
    (or exacerbate an existing infection).” With respect to the elder
    abuse cause of action, it alleged that “RCBH’s staff neglected
    Mahmood’s physical care with reckless indifference by failing to
    prevent his dehydration” and that its negligence was reckless
    because “[t]here is no justification why RCBH employees could
    not prevent its patients from experiencing severe dehydration
    after less than a month’s stay.” The plaintiffs further alleged that
    Nima and Nobahar’s inability to get in contact with Mahmood at
    4
    RCBH, despite calling “at all hours of the day and night,”
    indicated that “RCBH’s employees simply did not care and did
    not bother to check on Mahmood” and that “there was systemic
    indifference at RCBH towards Mahmood that was authorized or
    ratified by its executives (or at least, took place with their
    knowledge).”
    The plaintiffs also opposed the motion to compel
    arbitration. They contended that RCBH had failed to present
    evidence that the arbitration agreement was subject to section
    1295, which operates to bind a patient’s agreement to arbitrate
    on his heirs with respect to a wrongful death claim, because it not
    shown that it was a “health care provider” as defined by the
    statute. They also argued that they had not signed the
    arbitration agreement and that their elder abuse claim and
    wrongful death claim sounding in elder abuse fall outside the
    scope of section 1295, which only pertains to claims for
    professional negligence.
    The trial court held that the wrongful death claim was not
    subject to arbitration because it sounded in elder abuse and thus
    did not fall within the ambit of section 1295. The court granted
    RCBH’s petition to compel arbitration as to the survivor claims
    and ordered the wrongful death claim stayed.
    CONTENTIONS
    RCBH argues that the court erred in denying the motion to
    compel with respect to the wrongful death claim because the
    arbitration agreement complied with section 1295, RCBH is a
    licensed health care provider, and the wrongful death claim arose
    from its alleged professional negligence. The plaintiffs argue that
    the court correctly concluded that section 1295 does not apply to
    5
    their wrongful death claim because it is primarily based on
    allegations of elder abuse.3
    DISCUSSION
    1.    The court did not err in holding that the plaintiffs’
    wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration.
    1.1.   Standard of Review
    “ ‘There is no uniform standard of review for evaluating an
    order denying a motion to compel arbitration. [Citation.] If the
    court’s order is based on a decision of fact, then we adopt a
    substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] Alternatively, if the
    court’s denial rests solely on a decision of law, then a de novo
    standard of review is employed. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Avery v.
    Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 
    218 Cal.App.4th 50
    ,
    60.) The issue of whether a third party is bound by an arbitration
    agreement is a question of law. (Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living,
    Inc. (2013) 
    212 Cal.App.4th 674
    , 680 (Daniels).)
    1.2.   Section 1295 and its Application to
    Nonsignatories of an Arbitration Agreement
    Section 1295 governs agreements to arbitrate professional
    negligence claims in medical services contracts with health care
    providers.4 In Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 
    50 Cal.4th 838
    , 841 (Ruiz),
    3On appeal, the plaintiffs do not dispute that the arbitration
    agreement satisfies the requirements of section 1295 or that RCBH is
    a “health care provider” under section 1295.
    4Section 1295 defines “professional negligence” as “a negligent act or
    omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering of
    professional services, which act or omission is the proximate cause of a
    personal injury or wrongful death, provided that such services are
    6
    the Supreme Court held “that all wrongful death claimants are
    bound by arbitration agreements entered into pursuant to section
    1295, at least when . . . the language of the agreement manifests
    an intent to bind these claimants.” “ ‘Section 1295 was enacted as
    part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975
    (MICRA). . . . The purpose of section 1295 is to encourage and
    facilitate arbitration of medical malpractice disputes,’ ” because
    the arbitration of these disputes “furthers MICRA’s goal of
    reducing costs in the resolution of malpractice claims and
    therefore malpractice insurance premiums.” (Id. at pp. 843–844.)
    The Supreme Court was “persuaded that section 1295, construed
    in light of its purpose, is designed to permit patients who sign
    arbitration agreements to bind their heirs in wrongful death
    actions.” (Id. at pp. 849–850.)
    In Daniels, the plaintiff alleged that the decedent, who was
    elderly and suffered from “ ‘dementia with psychosis,’ ” died as a
    result of receiving inadequate care at the defendant’s residential
    care facility for the elderly. (Daniels, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 677.) In her capacity as the decedent’s successor in interest,
    the plaintiff alleged claims for elder abuse, negligence, breach of
    contract, and willful misconduct. (Id. at pp. 677–678.) The
    plaintiff also alleged a wrongful death cause of action in her
    personal capacity as the decedent’s heir. (Id. at p. 678.)
    Upon the decedent’s admission to the facility, the plaintiff,
    who had power of attorney for the decedent, had signed a
    residency agreement containing an arbitration provision covering
    within the scope of services for which the provider is licensed and
    which are not within any restriction imposed by the licensing agency or
    licensed hospital.” (§ 1295, subd. (g)(2).)
    7
    “ ‘any and all claims and disputes arising from or related to this
    Agreement or to your residency, care or services’ ” received at the
    facility, and which bound “ ‘all parties to this Agreement and
    their spouse, heirs, representatives, executors, administrators,
    successors, and assigns, as applicable. . . .’ ” (Daniels, supra, 212
    Cal.App.4th at p. 678.) The defendants therefore moved to compel
    arbitration. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the motion, concluding
    that the wrongful death claim was not arbitrable because the
    plaintiff did not sign the residency agreement in her personal
    capacity and was therefore a third party to the agreement. (Id. at
    p. 679.)
    The Court of Appeal agreed. It observed that a plaintiff’s
    “wrongful death claim is personal to her and lies independent
    of . . . survivor claims,” and that “[a]s a general rule, a party
    cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute that he or she has not
    agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Daniels, supra, 212
    Cal.App.4th at p. 680.) The court explained that “Ruiz is based
    squarely on section 1295, which governs agreements to arbitrate
    professional negligence or medical malpractice claims” and
    “disagree[d] that Ruiz should be extended to arbitration
    agreements not governed by section 1295, or that are entered into
    with a person other than a health care provider for claims other
    than medical malpractice.” (Id. at pp. 682–683.) The court
    rejected the defendants’ contention that a residential care facility
    was “ ‘an extension of a health care facility’ ” and thus subject to
    section 1295. (Id. at pp. 683–684.)
    In Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018)
    
    20 Cal.App.5th 835
     (Avila), the decedent, an 87-year-old man,
    was admitted to an acute care hospital, where a feeding tube
    allegedly became dislodged and caused the man to aspirate. (Id.
    8
    at p. 838.) The decedent’s son had previously signed an
    arbitration agreement on the decedent’s behalf that included the
    necessary language from section 1295. (Avila, at p. 838.) The
    decedent’s son sued for “ ‘negligence/willful misconduct,’ ” elder
    abuse, and wrongful death. (Id. at p. 839.) The Avila court
    recognized that Ruiz created “an exception to the general rule
    that arbitration agreements must be the subject of consent rather
    than compulsion.” (Id. at p. 841.) Thus, the central question was
    “whether Ruiz is controlling here,” which required that the court
    “determine whether this case is about ‘professional negligence,’ as
    defined by MICRA, or something else.” (Id. at p. 842.)
    The court rejected the defendants’ contention that “Daniels
    is irrelevant because the defendant in that case was not a
    licensed health care provider” and concluded that “[w]hat matters
    is not the license status of the defendant, but the basis of the
    claims as pleaded in the complaint. If the primary basis for the
    wrongful death claim sounds in professional negligence . . . then
    section 1295 applies. If . . . the primary basis is under the Elder
    Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act [(the Elder
    Abuse Act)] [citations] . . . , then section 1295 does not apply and
    neither does Ruiz’s exception to the general rule that one who has
    not consented cannot be compelled to arbitrate.” (Avila, supra, 20
    Cal.App.5th at p. 842.) The court noted that “[t]he complaint
    includes allegations that could be categorized as professional
    negligence as well as elder abuse” and that “[t]here is at least
    some overlap between the two.” (Id. at p. 843.) However, “the
    complaint was pleaded as one for ‘negligence/willful misconduct,’
    elder abuse and neglect under the [Elder Abuse] Act, and
    wrongful death. The complaint allege[d] a ‘conscious and
    continued pattern of withholding the most basic care and
    9
    services,’ which included a lack of monitoring, supervision,
    assistance, and other adequate care and services.” (Ibid.) “Under
    the [Elder Abuse] Act, neglect ‘ “refers not to the substandard
    performance of medical services but, rather, to the ‘failure of
    those responsible for attending to the basic needs and comforts of
    elderly or dependent adults, regardless of their professional
    standing, to carry out their custodial obligations.’ [Citation.]
    Thus, the statutory definition of ‘neglect’ speaks not of the
    undertaking of medical services, but of the failure to provide
    medical care.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see also Welf. & Inst. Code,
    § 15610.57.) Because the plaintiffs “chose to plead a cause of
    action under the [Elder Abuse] Act, and they did so successfully[,]
    [t]he fact that they could have also pleaded a claim for medical
    malpractice, had they wished to do so, is irrelevant.” (Avila, at
    p. 843.)
    1.3.   Analysis
    Although the arbitration agreement at issue here provides
    that any dispute between Mahmood and RCBH will be
    determined by submission to arbitration and is binding on “all
    parties,” including “representatives . . . and heirs who bring any
    claims individually or in a representative capacity”, the
    agreement was signed only by Mahmood, not by Nima or
    Nobahar. “Generally speaking, one must be a party to an
    arbitration agreement to be bound by it. ‘The strong public policy
    in favor of arbitration does not extend to those who are not
    parties to an arbitration agreement, and a party cannot be
    compelled to arbitrate a dispute that he has not agreed to resolve
    by arbitration. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Buckner v. Tamarin (2002)
    
    98 Cal.App.4th 140
    , 142.)
    10
    As discussed, section 1295 supplies an exception to this
    general rule and permits patients who consented to arbitration to
    bind their heirs in actions for wrongful death where the action is
    based on professional negligence. As in Avila, the question before
    us is “whether Ruiz is controlling here.” (Avila, supra, 20
    Cal.App.5th at p. 842.) Thus, we must “determine whether this
    case is about ‘professional negligence,’ as defined by MICRA, or
    something else.” (Ibid.)
    RCBH argues that the wrongful death claim sounds in
    professional negligence because “the basis for the wrongful death
    cause of action was RCBH’s alleged failure to provide appropriate
    medical care for Mahmood’s infection.” While there is “at least
    some overlap between” professional negligence and elder abuse
    (Avila, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 843), the plaintiffs here
    pleaded their action as one for wrongful death, negligence, and
    elder abuse. They alleged that there was a failure by RCBH’s
    employees to attend to Mahmood’s basic needs, including
    hydration, which resulted in his hospitalizations, and a failure to
    check on him, as reflected by their failure to put Nima and
    Nobahar in touch with Mahmood when they frequently called. As
    in Avila, these allegations are consistent with a claim for neglect
    under the Elder Abuse Act, which “ ‘ “speaks not of the
    undertaking of medical services, but of the failure to provide
    medical care.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
    RCBH does not address or distinguish Avila or Daniels but
    relies on several cases that did not concern arbitrability or
    section 1295 to support the proposition that the allegations of the
    amended complaint are consistent with professional negligence
    11
    and do not plead a claim for elder abuse.5 We are not persuaded.
    First, as the plaintiffs point out, the issue here is not whether
    they have successfully pleaded a claim for elder abuse, but
    whether their wrongful death cause of action is based on
    something other than professional negligence. Thus, to the extent
    that RCBH relies on the cases to support that the plaintiffs have
    not adequately pleaded recklessness for purposes of stating a
    claim for elder abuse, we do not find them instructive, as that is
    not the question before us.6
    Moreover, the cases RCBH cites addressing neglect under
    the Elder Abuse Act are distinguishable. In Carter v. Prime
    Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 
    198 Cal.App.4th 396
    ,
    406–407 (Carter), the court observed that, to state a claim for
    elder abuse, a “plaintiff must allege . . . facts establishing that
    5 RCBH also did not address Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 
    140 Cal.App.4th 1256
     in its briefing below or on appeal, nor was that case
    raised by plaintiffs or the court. The dissent nevertheless contends that
    Quiroz does not allow Mahmood’s heirs to sue on their own behalf for
    wrongful death based on allegations of elder abuse. The pivotal issue
    in that case, however, was whether the filing of the survivor action
    related back to the filing of the wrongful death claim in the original
    complaint, thereby avoiding the bar of the statute of limitations. (Id. at
    pp. 1262, 1278.) The Quiroz court observed that the relation-back
    doctrine required that the amended complaint must involve the same
    injury, and a new plaintiff could not be joined after the limitations
    period has run if he or she seeks to enforce an independent right or
    greater liability. (Id. at p. 1278.)
    6Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC (2018) 
    25 Cal.App.5th 1034
     does not assist RCBH for this reason. The court in Cochrum
    affirmed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the
    plaintiff had not identified substantial evidence of recklessness by the
    defendants. (Id. at pp. 1044–1050.)
    12
    the defendant: (1) had responsibility for meeting the basic needs
    of the elder or dependent adult, such as nutrition, hydration,
    hygiene or medical care [citations]; (2) knew of conditions that
    made the elder or dependent adult unable to provide for his or
    her own basic needs [citations]; and (3) denied or withheld goods
    or services necessary to meet the elder or dependent adult’s basic
    needs . . . .” The court concluded that the demurrer of the elder
    abuse cause of action had been properly sustained where the
    plaintiff had failed to allege that the defendant had denied or
    withheld care or treatment from the decedent in connection with
    the decedent’s first two hospitalizations and had alleged that the
    defendant’s “staff actively undertook to provide treatment
    intended to save [the decedent’s] life” with respect to the third
    hospitalization. (Id. at pp. 407–408.)
    In Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (2018)
    
    23 Cal.App.5th 206
    , 212 (Alexander), the decedent, a 70-year-old
    woman suffering from end-stage terminal pancreatic cancer, died
    days after she was transferred from a skilled nursing facility to
    the defendant hospital. The complaint alleged that the
    “[d]efendants administered drugs to [the decedent] to hasten her
    death and withheld nutrition, hydration, and pain medication,”
    but was also “replete with allegations that [the decedent]
    regularly received pain medication, nutrition, and fluids” and
    that defendants “provided [the decedent] with medical care
    throughout her hospitalization.” (Id. at p. 224.) The Court of
    Appeal thus concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint was
    insufficient to state a cause of action for elder abuse within the
    meaning of the Elder Abuse Act because “[u]nlike cases in which
    elder abuse is properly pleaded because the patient was
    abandoned or ignored for extended periods of time, here family
    13
    members disagreed with the nature of care their mother was
    receiving. Disagreements between physicians and the patient or
    surrogate about the type of care being provided does not give rise
    to an elder abuse cause of action.” (Id. at p. 223.)
    Here, the amended complaint alleges that RCBH failed to
    take appropriate action with respect to Mahmood, not that the
    plaintiffs disagreed with RCBH’s rendering of professional
    services. The amended complaint is not “replete” with references
    to the medical care that RCBH provided to Mahmood (Alexander,
    supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 223), nor are there allegations that
    RHBC “actively undertook to provide treatment.” (Carter, supra,
    198 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) RCBH fails to identify any allegations
    describing the medical care it provided; it merely asserts that the
    allegation that RCBH “failed to provide appropriate medical care”
    suggests that it was providing medical care. Consistent with the
    definition of “neglect” under the Elder Abuse Act, and in contrast
    to the definition of “professional negligence” under section 1295,
    the gravamen of the amended complaint is that Mahmood “was
    abandoned or ignored for extended periods of time.” (Alexander,
    at p. 223.)7
    7 We are not persuaded by RCBH’s contention that the plaintiffs
    admitted in the amended complaint that Mahmood’s wrongful death
    from sepsis did not result from the alleged negligence of RCBH, but the
    professional negligence of the doctors who treated his toe injury. As a
    preliminary matter, this contention was raised for the first time in its
    reply brief and was therefore forfeited. (Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ
    Ins. Services, Inc. (2010) 
    188 Cal.App.4th 401
    , 427–428.) Even if it
    were not, the complaint alleges that Mahmood either acquired the
    MRSA infection at RCBH or it was exacerbated there; that “[e]ither
    that MRSA infection, or the remnants of his gangrene infection,
    developed into sepsis”; and “[t]hat sepsis, along with the deterioration
    of his physical condition from RCBH’s inadequate care, proved fatal to
    14
    Thus, we hold that the arbitration agreement is not
    controlled by section 1295 and does not bind the plaintiffs as to
    their wrongful death claim.
    poor Mahmood.” The amended complaint plainly alleges that RCBH’s
    negligence was a “substantial factor” in contributing to Mahmood’s
    death and thus was sufficient to support a wrongful death cause of
    action against RCBH. (See Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 
    5 Cal.App.4th 1487
    , 1497.)
    15
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying the motion to compel arbitration in part
    is affirmed. The plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    LAVIN, Acting P.J.
    I CONCUR:
    BENKE, J.*
    * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
    District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6
    of the California Constitution.
    16
    EGERTON, J., Dissenting.
    I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis in
    this case. In my view, the case is governed by our Supreme
    Court’s decision in Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 
    50 Cal.4th 838
     (Ruiz)
    and Code of Civil Procedure section 1295.1 The law does not
    permit Mahmood Sajjadi’s heirs to sue on their own behalf for
    the elder abuse of Mahmood; only the estate can bring that claim.
    Accordingly, the heirs cannot pursue a wrongful death cause
    of action that is “based on” or “sounds in” elder abuse. Once
    the heirs’ elder abuse theory is eliminated from their wrongful
    death cause of action, the only remaining conduct alleged is
    negligence. The heirs do not allege defendant and appellant
    the Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills (RCBH) battered
    Mahmood or committed any other intentional tort against him.
    Accordingly, under Ruiz and section 1295, their wrongful death
    claim must go to arbitration along with the estate’s survivor
    claims for negligence and elder abuse.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    1.     The complaints
    The heirs of Mahmood Sajjadi, on behalf of themselves and
    of his estate,2 have tried everything they can think of to defeat
    the arbitration of this case. Their original complaint, filed
    1     References to statutes are to the Code of Civil Procedure
    unless otherwise noted.
    2     Because the estate and the heirs—Mahmood Sajjadi’s
    widow and his adult son—are differently situated in terms of
    their authority to assert various causes of action, I refer to them
    as the estate and the heirs rather than as “plaintiffs” collectively.
    June 30, 2021, alleged Mahmood’s death was “caused by the
    negligent conduct of [RCBH] in mishandling his postoperative
    care” as well as by the “negligent misconduct” of two physicians
    not affiliated with RCBH. The complaint then referred to
    “Defendants’ gross negligence.”
    Under “Factual Background,” the heirs alleged RCBH
    “[f]ail[ed] to keep [Mahmood] properly hydrated” and its
    “employees” were negligent in “apparently . . . not
    accomplish[ing]” this “shockingly basic task.” They also alleged
    that “[a]nother potential sign of RCBH’s negligence” was that his
    family called repeatedly, “only to be told by RCBH that Mahmood
    was sleeping.” The heirs alleged, “It is simply implausible that
    . . . Mahmood would always be asleep. Rather, RCBH employees
    likely just did not bother to check at all, and this lackadaisical
    attitude was indicative of their overall efforts to monitor him.”
    In addition, the heirs alleged “[o]n information and belief, RCBH
    employees failed to perform adequate wound care on Mahmood.”
    Based on these allegations, the heirs alleged causes of
    action for wrongful death (first claim for relief) and negligence
    (second claim for relief). In the wrongful death claim, the heirs
    alleged each defendant owed Mahmood a duty of care, which
    they breached. “RCBH breached its duty of care,” the complaint
    alleged, “because it provided inadequate care to Mahmood during
    his stay at its facility,” causing him to acquire a staphylococcus
    infection. The negligence claim, alleged as a “survival action,”
    repeated the identical allegation as to RCBH.
    After RCBH filed a petition to compel arbitration, the heirs
    filed an amended complaint on August 20, 2021. The heirs again
    alleged RCBH was “negligent” “in mishandling [Mahmood’s]
    postoperative care.” The amended complaint added allegations
    2
    that RCBH’s “negligent care” resulted in repeated hospital
    readmissions “for acute renal failure (due to dehydration),”
    and that Mahmood’s infection “either [was] acquired” at RCBH
    “or exacerbated” there. The sepsis that resulted in Mahmood’s
    death, the heirs alleged, resulted “[e]ither” from the staph
    infection “or the remnants of his gangrene infection.” The
    amended complaint alleged “[t]hat sepsis, along with the
    deterioration of his physical condition from RCBH’s inadequate
    care, proved fatal.” The heirs alleged Mahmood lost his life
    “due to Defendants’ negligence.”
    The heirs deleted their reference to “wound care” and
    instead alleged RCBH’s employees “failed to provide appropriate
    medical care” to Mahmood, “given that they could not even keep
    him hydrated.” The amended complaint alleged three causes
    of action: wrongful death (first claim for relief) “(By All Plaintiffs
    against All Defendants)”3; a “survival action” for “negligence”
    (second claim for relief); and a “survival action” for “elder abuse”
    (third claim for relief).
    In the elder abuse claim, the heirs added a paragraph
    about Mahmood’s alleged signing of the arbitration agreement
    (“If Mahmood did, in fact, sign this agreement . . .”), stating
    “RCBH’s reckless and/or fraudulent behavior manifested itself
    immediately” when it asked Mahmood to sign an arbitration
    agreement. The heirs alleged “RCBH’s staff neglected
    Mahmood’s physical care with reckless indifference by failing
    to prevent his dehydration.” The heirs continued, “But it is
    equally possible that RCBH’s employees were simply indifferent
    3     At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded he was
    alleging this claim on behalf of the heirs only, and not the estate.
    3
    to the charge of their patients.” The amended complaint alleged
    RCBH’s “staggering level of incompetence” “contributed toward[ ]
    their reckless neglect towards Mahmood” and “may also have
    been a contributing factor toward[ ] his eventual death.” The
    heirs prayed for general, special, and punitive damages as well
    as attorney fees.
    2.     Proceedings in the trial court on RCBH’s petition
    to compel arbitration
    The heirs—again on behalf of themselves and the estate—
    filed an opposition to RCBH’s petition to compel arbitration.
    The heirs raised a number of contentions. They argued the
    agreement was “rescindable and unenforceable” because
    Mahmood was “disoriented and delusional” and therefore lacked
    capacity to enter into the agreement. They noted they—the heirs
    —had not signed the agreement. They asserted RCBH was not
    a “ ‘health care provider’ ” within the meaning of section 1295
    and so Ruiz, supra, 
    50 Cal.4th 838
    , did not apply to this case.
    Citing Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc.
    (2018) 
    20 Cal.App.5th 835
     (Avila) and Daniels v. Sunrise Senior
    Living, Inc. (2013) 
    212 Cal.App.4th 674
     (Daniels), the heirs
    argued “claims for elder abuse are outside the scope of section
    1295, and thus Mahmood’s agreement to arbitrate does not
    bind Plaintiffs [sic] with respect to that claim.” The heirs said
    “because an elder abuse claim is not subject to section 1295,
    section 1281.2(c)’s carve out for medical malpractice claims is not
    applicable to elder abuse claims.” Treating the estate’s survivor
    claim for elder abuse and the heirs’ wrongful death claim as
    interchangeable, they continued, “Accordingly, even if Mahmood’s
    agreement to arbitrate were somehow binding on Plaintiffs [sic]
    4
    with respect to their elder abuse claim [sic]4 (or the aspects of the
    wrongful death claim that are related to that elder abuse claim),
    the Court could and should nevertheless decline to order them
    to arbitrate those claims against RCBH because of the risk of
    inconsistent factual rulings on the same issues between an
    arbitration and this action.”
    In its reply, RCBH argued the heirs hadn’t shown
    Mahmood lacked the mental capacity to enter into the arbitration
    agreement, the agreement was not unconscionable, and RCBH
    was a healthcare provider. RCBH stated the court had no
    discretion to invoke section 1281.2, subdivision (c) (section
    1281.2(c)) because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed
    the agreement. Citing Ruiz and section 1295, RCBH asserted
    the heirs’ wrongful death claim indeed was subject to arbitration.
    RCBH argued Avila was distinguishable because there was
    no claim for negligence in that case,5 while here the estate had
    alleged a survivor claim for negligence.
    The court heard argument on the petition on September 28,
    2021.6 On October 8, 2021, the court issued a written opinion.
    4     As discussed below, only Mahmood (or his estate) can
    assert an elder abuse claim. The heirs have no claim, in their
    own right, under the Elder Abuse Act. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave.
    Center (2006) 
    140 Cal.App.4th 1256
    , 1282 (Quiroz).)
    5     RCBH was mistaken. In Avila, the plaintiffs alleged
    a cause of action for “ ‘negligence/willful misconduct.’ ” (Avila,
    supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 837, 839.)
    6     At the hearing, the heirs’ counsel argued (among other
    things) that “elder abuse claims are not subject to MICRA.” It is
    unclear what counsel meant by this. Recoverable damages under
    5
    The court found there was a “valid enforceable arbitration
    agreement between RCBH and [Mahmood].” The agreement
    was not unconscionable. RCBH and Mahmood agreed the FAA
    would govern their agreement and therefore the court could not
    “look to [Code of Civil Procedure] § 128[1].2(c) to deny the motion
    to arbitrate.”
    The court therefore granted the petition as to the survivor
    claims for negligence and elder abuse. As for the heirs’ wrongful
    death claim, however, relying on Avila, the court denied the
    petition. The court stated, “Because the wrongful death claim
    sounds in elder abuse, section 1295 does not apply.”
    DISCUSSION
    1.     The wrongful death tort and the Elder Abuse Act
    At common law, personal tort claims expired when the
    victim died. Today, a cause of action for wrongful death exists
    only by virtue of legislative grace. The statutorily created
    wrongful death cause of action (§§ 377.60-377.62) does not effect
    a survival of the decedent’s cause of action. Instead, it gives
    the decedent’s heirs a totally new right of action, on different
    principles. (Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263; Adams v.
    Superior Court (2011) 
    196 Cal.App.4th 71
    , 76 (Adams); Armijo v.
    Miles (2005) 
    127 Cal.App.4th 1405
    , 1424; 6 Witkin, Summary of
    Cal. Law (11th ed. 2023) Torts, §§ 1537-1538.) The elements of a
    wrongful death cause of action are “ ‘the tort (negligence or other
    wrongful act), the resulting death, and the damages, consisting
    of the pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs.’ ” (Quiroz, at p. 1263,
    the Elder Abuse Act cannot exceed those allowed under Civil
    Code section 3333.2, subdivision (b). (See Welf. & Inst. Code,
    § 15657, subd. (b).)
    6
    quoting 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 891,
    p. 350. See § 377.60 [wrongful death action may be maintained
    “for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect
    of another”]; 6 Witkin, supra, Torts, § 1541 [“Hence, recovery
    is authorized when death results from either a negligent or
    an intentional wrongful act.”].)
    “Unlike a cause of action for wrongful death, a survivor
    cause of action is not a new cause of action that vests in the heirs
    on the death of the decedent. It is instead a separate and distinct
    cause of action which belonged to the decedent before death but,
    by statute, survives that event.” (Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th
    at p. 1264; Adams, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 78-79; Grant
    v. McAuliffe (1953) 
    41 Cal.2d 859
    , 864.) The heirs can recover
    damages for “the loss or damage that the decedent sustained
    or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or
    exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled
    to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages
    for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.” (§ 377.34, subd. (a).)
    One exception, however, to the rule that damages for the
    decedent’s predeath pain and suffering are not recoverable in
    a survivor action is contained in the Elder Abuse and Dependent
    Adult Civil Protection Act, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.
    (the Elder Abuse Act or the Act). “The ability of the decedent’s
    successor in interest to recover damages for the decedent’s
    predeath pain, suffering, or disfigurement under [section 15657
    of the Act] specifically trumps the general prohibition on such
    recovery provided at Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34.
    [Citation.] But it is also expressly subject to the dollar amount
    limitation of Civil Code section 3333.2—a maximum of $250,000
    for noneconomic losses in an action for injury against a health
    7
    care provider based on professional negligence.” (Quiroz, supra,
    140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265.)
    The Elder Abuse Act provides for heightened remedies
    when the decedent’s successor in interest proves, by clear and
    convincing evidence, that—as relevant here—the defendant
    is liable for “neglect” and “has been guilty of recklessness,
    oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657,
    subds. (a) & (b); Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265.)
    The Act defines “neglect” as “[t]he negligent failure of any person
    having the care or custody of an elder . . . to exercise that degree
    of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.”
    (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.57, subd. (a)(1).) “Neglect includes,
    but is not limited to, all of the following: [¶] (1) Failure to assist
    in personal hygiene, or in the provision of food, clothing, or
    shelter. [¶] (2) Failure to provide medical care for physical . . .
    needs. . . . [¶] (3) Failure to protect from health and safety
    hazards. [¶] (4) Failure to prevent malnutrition or dehydration.”
    (Id., subd. (b)(1)-(4).) “[T]he Legislature intended the Elder
    Abuse Act to sanction only egregious acts of misconduct distinct
    from professional negligence.” (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior
    Court (2004) 
    32 Cal.4th 771
    , 784.)
    The statutory rule permitting recovery under the Elder
    Abuse Act by the victim’s successor in interest or heirs “does not
    affect or expand the type of damages recoverable by a decedent’s
    heir in a wrongful death action in which the plaintiff seeks
    compensation for his or her own injuries, which are separate
    and distinct from the decedent’s predeath injuries for which
    compensation is sought in a survivor action.” (Quiroz, supra,
    140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265. See 6 Witkin, supra, Torts, § 1865.)
    In other words, distinct from a survivor claim under the Act,
    8
    a cause of action for wrongful death does not permit a decedent’s
    heir to seek recovery for his or her own injuries based on a
    violation of the Act that damaged the decedent. (Quiroz, at
    p. 1269.) Accordingly, here, the heirs cannot seek recovery
    in their own wrongful death claim for RCBH’s violation of
    the Act in its treatment of—or failure to treat—Mahmood.7
    2.     Ruiz and section 1295
    In Ruiz, supra, 
    50 Cal.4th 838
    , our Supreme Court
    addressed this issue: “[W]hen a person seeking medical care
    7      The majority notes Quiroz had to do with the statute
    of limitations. (Maj. Opn. ante, at p. 12, fn. 5.) True. It did.
    However, the majority does not contend the Quiroz court’s
    explanation of the governing law on wrongful death claims
    and elder abuse claims was dicta, or inaccurate in any way.
    Nor could it. To determine whether the untimely survivor
    cause of action for elder abuse asserted by the decedent’s mother
    related back to the date of her timely filed wrongful death claim
    on her own behalf—“ ‘based on the same underlying facts’ ”
    (Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1262, 1270)—the Quiroz
    court had to determine who exactly was entitled to bring each
    of those claims. The court stated, “Consistently with established
    law, we hold that the survivor cause of action pleaded a different
    injury than the wrongful death cause of action. Consequently,
    the survivor claim does not relate back to the date of the timely
    filed wrongful death claim and it is therefore barred by the
    statute of limitations.” (Id. at p. 1262.) The court further held
    the mother was “not entitled to heightened remedies available
    under the Elder Abuse Act in conjunction with her own wrongful
    death claim.” (Ibid.)
    This is precisely what Mahmood’s heirs are attempting
    to do here: recover for the elder abuse of Mahmood in their own
    wrongful death claim. And the same “established law” the Quiroz
    court cited prohibits them from doing so.
    9
    contracts with a health care provider to resolve all medical
    malpractice claims through arbitration, does that agreement
    apply to the resolution of wrongful death claims, when the
    claimants are not themselves signatory to the arbitration
    agreement?” (Id. at p. 841.) The court concluded the answer
    was “yes,” at least where “the language of the agreement
    manifests an intent to bind [those] claimants.” (Ibid.)
    In Ruiz, the decedent’s heirs sued his doctor and others,
    alleging the defendants “failed to adequately identify and treat
    [decedent’s] hip fracture[,] resulting in complications, and
    eventually his death.” (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 841-842.)
    They alleged claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death.
    The decedent had signed an arbitration agreement that expressly
    stated it bound “ ‘all parties whose claims may arise out of
    or relate to treatment or service provided by the physician[,]
    including any spouse or heirs of the patient.’ ” (Ibid.)
    The high court quoted section 1295, noting its purpose was
    “ ‘to encourage and facilitate arbitration of medical malpractice
    disputes. . . . Accordingly, the provisions of section 1295 are to
    be construed liberally.’ ” (Ruiz, 
    supra,
     50 Cal.4th at pp. 843-844.)
    The court stated, “[I]t is clear that section 1295 was intended to
    include the arbitration of wrongful death claims.” (Id. at p. 849.)
    The court noted, “In light of the purpose and scope of the statute,
    it is not surprising that section 1295 does not distinguish
    between malpractice claims asserted by the patient or the
    patient’s estate, and wrongful death claims arising out of alleged
    malpractice committed against the patient.” (Id. at p. 850.)
    Justice Moreno, on behalf of the court, noted it was
    the “ ‘perceived crisis regarding the availability of medical
    malpractice insurance’ ” that led to the Legislature’s enactment
    10
    of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA)
    (Stats. 1975, 2nd Ex. Sess. 1975-1976, ch. 1, § 26.6, pp. 3975-
    3976). (Ruiz, 
    supra,
     50 Cal.4th at p. 843.) Justice Moreno stated
    it was “clear” that MICRA applies to wrongful death actions
    arising from medical malpractice. (Id. at p. 850.) The court
    observed, “[I]f a spouse or adult children were permitted to
    litigate wrongful death . . . claims, ‘the purpose of section 1295
    would be defeated.’ ” (Id. at p. 851.)
    3.     Daniels and Avila
    The heirs rely on Daniels and Avila. Daniels was a lawsuit
    by an elderly woman’s surviving heir against “a residential care
    facility for the elderly.” (Daniels, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 676.) The heir asserted survivor claims for negligence,
    breach of contract, “willful misconduct,” and elder abuse under
    the Elder Abuse Act. (Id. at pp. 677-678.) The heir also asserted
    a wrongful death cause of action on her own behalf. The
    heir alleged the decedent developed sores and suffered from
    dehydration and a staph infection. The heir alleged the decedent
    “died as a result of receiving inadequate care” at the facility.
    (Id. at pp. 676-678.)
    The decedent’s heir had signed an arbitration agreement
    on the decedent’s behalf as her “attorney in fact,” but the heir
    had not signed “in her personal capacity.” (Daniels, supra, 212
    Cal.App.4th at p. 676.) The agreement did not comply with the
    requirements of section 1295. (Daniels, at pp. 683-684.) Nor did
    the agreement “manifestly intend[ ] to bind third party wrongful
    death claimants,” referring only to “ ‘your’ claims.” (Id. at p. 683.)
    The Daniels court acknowledged our Supreme Court’s
    decision in Ruiz, but said it was “distinguishable because [it]
    involved [an] arbitration agreement[ ] governed by section 1295.”
    11
    (Daniels, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 681.) The court stated it
    “disagree[d] that Ruiz should be extended to arbitration
    agreements . . . that are entered into with a person other than
    a health care provider for claims other than medical malpractice.”
    (Id. at p. 683.) The Daniels court discussed at length, and
    relied on, Fitzhugh v. Granada Healthcare & Rehabilitation
    Center, LLC (2007) 
    150 Cal.App.4th 469
    , a case that predated
    Ruiz. (Daniels, at p. 681.)
    In Avila, a decedent’s son, who also held a power of
    attorney for his father, sued a long-term acute care hospital
    for negligence, elder abuse, and wrongful death. The decedent
    had died within five days of his admission to the facility. The
    complaint alleged “neglect” based on a feeding tube becoming
    dislodged and resulting in a heart attack. (Avila, supra, 20
    Cal.App.5th at pp. 838-839.) The decedent’s son had signed an
    arbitration agreement on his father’s behalf; it covered “ ‘any
    dispute as to medical malpractice’ ” as well as “ ‘any legal claim
    or civil action arising out of or relating to your hospitalization.’ ”
    (Id. at p. 838.)
    The complaint alleged causes of action for (1) “ ‘negligence/
    willful misconduct’ ” and (2) “elder abuse and neglect” on
    behalf of the decedent’s estate as well as on behalf of the heir
    “individually.” A third cause of action alleged wrongful death
    on behalf of the heir only. (Avila, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at
    pp. 838-839.) The trial court denied the defendants’ petition
    to compel arbitration and the appellate court affirmed. (Id. at
    p. 837.) Citing Daniels, the court said Ruiz was not “controlling”
    because the “primary basis” for the heir’s wrongful death
    claim was elder abuse under the Act rather than professional
    negligence. (Avila, at p. 842.) The court observed that the
    12
    complaint’s allegations “could be categorized as professional
    negligence as well as elder abuse,” and there was “at least some
    overlap between the two.” (Id. at p. 843.)
    However, the court continued, the complaint alleged
    a “ ‘conscious and continued pattern of withholding the most
    basic care and services,’ which included a lack of monitoring,
    supervision, assistance, and other adequate care and services.”
    (Avila, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 843.) “[N]eglect” under the
    Act “ ‘ “refers not to the substandard performance of medical
    services but, rather, to the ‘failure of those responsible for
    attending to the basic needs and comforts of elderly or dependent
    adults . . . to carry out their custodial obligations.’ [Citation.]
    Thus, the statutory definition of ‘neglect’ speaks not of the
    undertaking of medical services, but of the failure to provide
    medical care.” ’ ” (Ibid.)
    The Avila court did not cite or address Quiroz nor did
    it discuss the governing law that precludes an heir from filing
    survivor claims for “negligence/willful misconduct” and “elder
    abuse and neglect” on his own behalf as well as on behalf of
    the estate. Instead, the court stated, “Both parties [the estate
    through decedent’s successor in interest and the heir in his
    individual capacity] are litigants in both the survivorship and
    wrongful death claims. Those claims involve the same set
    of operative facts. If the survivorship claims were arbitrated
    while the wrongful death claim was litigated, there is a strong
    possibility of inconsistent rulings.” (Avila, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th
    at p. 845.)
    4.     Ruiz and section 1295 control this case
    In my view, Avila and Daniels do not control this case.
    First, in both of those cases, the appellate courts emphasized
    13
    the trial courts had discretion under section 1281.2(c) to refuse
    to order even the arbitrable claims to arbitration. (Avila,
    supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 837, 839, 845; Daniels, supra,
    212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 676, 679-680, 686-687.) The FAA did
    not apply to the arbitration agreements in either of those cases.
    In Avila, the agreement did “not even mention the FAA, much
    less adopt its procedural rules.” (Avila, at p. 841.) The Daniels
    court said nothing about the FAA but, as noted, the agreement
    there did not meet section 1295’s requirements. (Daniels, at
    pp. 683-684.) The courts in both cases had substantial concerns
    about the risks of “conflicting rulings on common questions of
    law and fact if the survivor claims but not the wrongful death
    claim were ordered to arbitration.” (Id. at p. 677; see also id.
    at pp. 686-687 [“danger of inconsistent rulings” “given that
    [both survivor claims and wrongful death claims] are based
    on the allegation that [decedent] received inadequate care
    at [the facility]”]; Avila, at p. 845 [“If the survivorship claims
    were arbitrated while the wrongful death claim was litigated,
    there is a strong possibility of inconsistent rulings.”].)
    Here, the opposite is true. The trial court correctly held
    the FAA governs the arbitration agreement here. Accordingly,
    the court rejected the heirs’ request that it exercise discretion
    under section 1281.2(c) to refuse to send any of the claims
    to arbitration. Unlike Avila and Daniels, the agreement
    here complied to the letter with section 12958 and the parties
    8     The agreement contained the following language in bold
    red type: “NOTICE: BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU
    ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OF MEDICAL
    MALPRACTICE DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION
    AND YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY OR
    14
    expressly agreed it would bind “all parties, including the
    Resident’s representatives, executors, family members, and
    heirs who bring any claims individually or in a representative
    capacity.” Here—in contrast to Avila and Daniels—the risk of
    inconsistent rulings arises from the fact that an arbitrator will
    decide the survivor claims for negligence and elder abuse while
    a jury will decide the wrongful death claim, which the heirs
    now say they base on the very same elder abuse of Mahmood
    alleged in the survivor claim.
    And that is the biggest problem of all: the heirs’ effort to
    avoid arbitration by dressing up an elder abuse claim—brought
    on their own behalf rather than the estate’s—as a claim for
    wrongful death. In their brief, the heirs state the “primary basis
    for [their] wrongful death claim arises under the elder abuse law,
    not under professional negligence.” If this tactic were to succeed,
    it would turn the governing law set forth in Quiroz on its head
    and defeat the goals the Legislature had in mind when it passed
    section 1295.
    To say the heirs’ amended complaint is not a model of
    clarity is an understatement. The heirs allege Mahmood’s death
    was caused by RCBH’s “negligent conduct” and its employees
    A COURT TRIAL. SEE ARTICLE 1 OF THIS CONTRACT.”
    (See § 1295, subd. (b).) The agreement also contained this
    language in the same typeface: “NOTICE: BY SIGNING THIS
    CONTRACT YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ALL CLAIMS,
    INCLUDING CLAIMS OTHER THAN A CLAIM FOR MEDICAL
    MALPRACTICE, DECIDED BY ARBITRATION AND YOU ARE
    GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL AND
    YOU AGREE THAT NO PARTY SHALL ADJUDICATE ANY
    CLAIM ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS.”
    15
    “provided negligent care” and “inadequate care.” In their
    wrongful death cause of action, the heirs allege RCBH “owed
    Mahmood a duty of care” which it “breached” “because it provided
    inadequate care.” That certainly sounds like professional
    negligence. The survivor claim for “negligence” contains similar
    allegations.
    In the survivor action for elder abuse, the heirs allege
    “reckless and/or fraudulent behavior” by RCBH. The “fraudulent
    behavior” seems to consist of asking Mahmood to sign the
    arbitration agreement. As for “recklessness,” the heirs allege
    an RCBH employee’s inability to open a door when Mahmood’s
    son came by to drop off a sweater “illustrate[s] RCBH’s
    recklessness.” The heirs also allege RCBH’s “failure to prevent
    Mahmood’s dehydration was reckless.” But, they continue,
    “it is equally possible that RCBH’s employees were simply
    indifferent to the charge of their patients.”
    Is “indifference” the same as negligence? Is it recklessness?
    “[I]ncompetence” is not recklessness. “Recklessness, unlike
    negligence, involves more than ‘inadvertence, incompetence,
    unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions’ but rather rises
    to the level of a ‘conscious choice of a course of action . . . with
    knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.’ ”
    (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 
    20 Cal.4th 23
    , 31-32. See CACI
    No. 3113 [“Recklessness” under the Elder Abuse Act requires
    the defendant “knew it was highly probable that [its] conduct
    would cause harm and [it] knowingly disregarded this risk.
    ‘Recklessness’ is more than just the failure to use reasonable
    care.”].) Do the heirs allege RCBH staff intentionally refused
    to give Mahmood fluids?
    16
    The word “neglect” did not appear in the heirs’ original
    complaint. In the amended complaint, the word “neglect”
    appears seven times and the word “neglected” once. The heirs
    first use the word in their allegation that RCBH ignored
    Mahmood’s advance healthcare directive. The heirs then allege,
    “RCBH’s staff neglected Mahmood’s physical care with reckless
    indifference by failing to prevent his dehydration.” In the
    remaining paragraphs, the heirs allege RCBH’s neglect “may
    also have been a contributing factor toward[ ] his eventual
    death,” caused him to suffer emotional distress as well as
    pain and suffering and to incur medical expenses, and entitled
    him to punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.
    To be sure, neglect can constitute elder abuse under
    the Act. As noted, the Act sets forth a number of definitions,
    including the failure to provide medical care and the failure
    to prevent dehydration. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.57,
    subd. (b)(2), (4).) Mahmood’s estate is absolutely entitled
    to assert a cause of action under the Elder Abuse Act. As
    the trial court correctly found, that cause of action is subject
    to the arbitration agreement Mahmood signed. What the law
    does not permit, however, is for the heirs to assert their own
    claim for RCBH’s neglect of Mahmood under the Act—whether
    or not entitled “wrongful death”—and thereby defeat the
    arbitration of their wrongful death claim, a cause of action
    Justice Moreno described as “clear[ly]” subject to section 1295.
    (Ruiz, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 849.)
    RCBH has not cited Quiroz or the legal rule it explains.
    Nor does it even mention Avila or Daniels in its briefs, much
    less address whether they apply to this case. RCBH argues
    only that the heirs’ wrongful death claim “sounds in professional
    17
    negligence.” RCBH overlooks the allegations of “neglect” the
    heirs have added to their amended complaint.
    In my view, however, notwithstanding these failings on
    RCBH’s part, we should follow the well-established, governing
    law. As the Quiroz court noted, our Legislature intended the
    enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act “to apply to
    actions by or on behalf of victims of elder or dependent care
    abuse. The legislative history does not reveal any intent to
    apply the Act to a wrongful death action brought by a decedent’s
    heir on his or her own behalf.” (Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th
    at p. 1283.) Nothing in the Act’s scope or character
    “means that a relative or an heir of an elder
    or dependent adult has an independent claim
    under the Act or that such a person may
    recover statutory heightened remedies in his or
    her own wrongful death claim. Under the Act,
    these claims and remedies are afforded only
    to victims of elder or dependent adult abuse.
    In the event of the victim’s death, the cause of
    action survives, in which case it is or becomes
    a survivor action pursued by the personal
    representative of the estate or the decedent’s
    successor in interest on the decedent’s behalf.”
    (Id. at p. 1284.)
    In short, the law does not permit Mahmood’s heirs to sue
    for the “neglect” of their family member on an elder abuse theory,
    whether they term that claim elder abuse or wrongful death.
    Once the elder abuse theory is stripped away from the heirs’
    wrongful death claim, all that remains are allegations of
    18
    negligence. Accordingly, the heirs’ cause of action for wrongful
    death falls under Ruiz and section 1295, and the trial court erred
    in not granting the petition to compel arbitration on that claim.
    EGERTON, J.
    19
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B317554

Filed Date: 6/20/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2023