Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) Petition to Compel Arbitration was deemed unenforceable as a matter of law because Kaiser failed to meet its burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
- a) Kaiser unsuccessfully asserted that The Medicare Act preempts application of California Health & Safety Code Section Section 1363.1 to Preclude Enforcement of the Contractual Arbitration Provision.
The Court, though, agreed with the Peck Law Group that the Medicare Act Does Not Preempt Application of Section 1363.1 of the California Health & Safety Code Section thereby precluding eenforcement of the Contractual Arbitration Provision. See Pagarigan v. Superior Court 102 Cal. App 4th 1121 (2002); Zolezzi v. Pacificare of California, 105 Cal.App.4th 573 (2003)129 Cal.Rptr.2d 526
- b) The Peck Law Group successfully argued that the subject arbitration is also not governed by the Federal Arbitration Act which Kaiser argued was the law. Please see Health & Safety Code Section 1 and Donald Imbler v. Pacificare of California, Inc. et al. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 567.
- c) The Court also agreed with the Peck Law Group argument that Kaiser failed to comply with the legal requirements of California Health & Safety Code Section 1 in that The Kaiser Enrollment Form Violated Section 1363.1, Subdivision (d), by Failing to Meet the Placement Requirement. Section 1363.1, subdivision (d), which requires that the arbitration disclosure be “displayed immediately before the signature line.”
About the Author
Attorney Steven Peck has been practicing law since 1981. A former successful business owner, Mr. Peck initially focused his legal career on business law. Within the first three years, after some colleagues and friend’s parents endured nursing home neglect and elder abuse, he continued his education to begin practicing elder law and nursing home abuse law.