Published Decisions
Stebner Gertler & Guadagni has handled important appellate decisions involving elder abuse, arbitration, and the rights of vulnerable residents and their families. The published decisions below reflect the firm’s work in cases addressing whether care facilities can force elders and their families into arbitration and the legal protections available when those agreements are challenged.
Haydon v. Elegance at Dublin, 97 Cal. App. 5th 1280 (2023)
In this case from the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, the plaintiff, Sally Ann Haydon, a former resident of Elegance at Dublin, a residential care facility for the elderly, sued the facility and its affiliated entities for elder abuse and other claims. The defendants attempted to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the resident agreement that Haydon had signed. The trial court denied the motion, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable. The defendants appealed this decision.
Haydon had lived at the facility for a few days and has dementia. The agreement she signed, which contained the arbitration clause, was over 40 pages long, and the arbitration clause was one of over 20 “miscellaneous” provisions at the end of the document. Haydon claimed she signed the agreement under duress and without understanding its contents.
On appeal, the court found that there was a high degree of both procedural and substantive unconscionability in the arbitration clause, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s decision not to enforce it. The court found procedural unconscionability in the circumstances of the agreement’s formation, considering the pressure Haydon was under to sign the agreement, the lack of explanation about the arbitration clause, and the confusing presentation of the clause.
The court found substantive unconscionability in the confidentiality provision of the arbitration agreement, the limitations on discovery under the applicable arbitration rules, and the requirement that parties bear their own costs and fees in connection with the arbitration. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions from the arbitration clause, given the extent of the unconscionability.
Theresa D. v. MBK Senior Living LLC, 73 Cal.App.5th 18 (2021)
Plaintiff (T.D.) was a resident at MuirWoods when she suffered falls, resulting in a fractured hip and deteriorating health. She became bedbound and was allegedly left in unsanitary conditions and infected with scabies. MuirWoods alleged that T.D.’s daughter signed an arbitration agreement pursuant to her authority to make health care decisions for T.D. when assisting in her placement at MuirWoods. The arbitration provision included a delegation clause providing that an arbitrator would decide whether a claim or dispute must be arbitrated. The clause specified that the agreement to arbitrate could be withdrawn within 30 days and that “agreeing to arbitration is not a condition of admission to the Community.”
The court of appeal affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The initial determination of whether the daughter was authorized to agree to arbitration on T.D.’s behalf is one for the court, not the arbitrator. The daughter was not T.D.’s agent for purposes of binding her to arbitration. Because the arbitration provision was optional, with its own signature line, it was essentially a separate agreement, MuirWoods did not establish that the daughter, who did not act pursuant to a durable power of attorney or similar authorization, could bind T.D. to an arbitration agreement as part of authorizing her admission.
Young v. Horizon West, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1122 (2013)
The plaintiff in this case was a resident of a skilled nursing facility. The appeals court determined that the execution of the arbitration agreement by the resident’s daughter was unauthorized. While the daughter held a Power of Attorney for health care decisions, this POA specified that it would not be in effect until the elder’s physician deemed her “unable to make [her] own health care decisions.”
The appeals court also determined that since the POA in question was limited to “health care decisions,” the arbitration agreement was not enforceable. The court affirmed that entering into an arbitration agreement did not constitute a health care decision.