 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ratcliff v. Whitacre11/15/2004
mployer, Hawthorne Community Medical Group, had an agreement with Maxicare which included a clause requiring arbitration of all claims arising from the care provided by Hawthorne and its employees to Maxicare's subscribers. Because the doctor-employee obtained patients through the Maxicare health plan, he received the benefit of his employer's agreement with Maxicare. His acceptance of that benefit compelled him as well to accept his employer's agreement with Maxicare to submit to arbitration. (Id. at pp. 477-479.)
Plaintiffs are unable to point to any benefit the agreement in this case conferred on Inland Valley and, by extension, Ms. Whitacre. They claim that Inland Valley benefited because Dr. Glaser required his obstetrical patients to deliver their babies at Inland Valley. However, the contract between Debbie Ratcliff and Temecula Valley does not contain any requirement for delivery at Inland Valley, and it therefore confers no such benefit on Inland Valley.
Plaintiffs also argue that the "intertwined relationship" among the parties provides justification for compelling arbitration. Plaintiffs point to a number of ways in which the parties were "intertwined," such as the fact that Temecula Valley advertised itself as "affiliated" with Inland Valley, that the two businesses were adjacent to each other and shared a parking lot, that Dr. Glaser was chief of staff at Inland Valley, and that Debbie Ratcliff was employed by Inland Valley. They do not allege that the medical malpractice arose out of Dr. Glaser's activities as chief of staff, nor do they point to any evidence in the record that the two business entities had any common ownership or any legal relationship which rendered the contracts signed by one entity binding on the other. They provide neither legal authority nor persuasive argument as to why the mere existence of a business relationship between Dr. Glaser, Temecula Valley and Inland Valley and an employment relationship between Debbie Ratcliff and Inland Valley should result in Inland Valley being compelled to arbitrate under the auspices of an arbitration agreement to which it is not a party. There is even less reason to compel Ms. Whitacre to do so, in that she is merely an employee of Inland Valley and had no business relationship whatsoever with Dr. Glaser or Temecula Valley.
The cases plaintiffs cite, Zakarian v. Bekov, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th 316 and County of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 237, do not support plaintiffs' contentions.
Zakarian v. Bekov, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th 316 involves no issue of compelling an unwilling nonsignatory to submit to arbitration. On the contrary, defendant Bekov, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement under which related claims were being arbitrated, sought to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims against him. (Id. at pp. 318-323.) The case is thus inapposite.
In County of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 237, the plaintiff was struck by a car while crossing a street. She sued the car owner for negligence, the county and the county transit authority for maintaining a dangerous condition of public property, and Kaiser for medical malpractice in its treatment of her injuries. The county, the transit district and the car owner cross-complained against Kaiser for equitable indemnity. The plaintiff was a Kaiser subscriber, and her agreement with Kaiser included an arbitration clause. Kaiser sought to compel arbitration of all claims; the cross-complainants all resisted. (Id. at pp. 239-240.) The Court of Appeal held that the absence of any pre-existing relationship between Kaiser and the cross-complainants preclu
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|