 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Michaelis v. Schori11/18/1993
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE.
No. B073693
1993.CA.40974 ; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 380; 20 Cal. App. 4th 133
Decided: November 18, 1993.
KATE MICHAELIS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS,
v.
JANET SCHORI ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. EC009966, S. James Otero, Judge.
Schmid & Norek, Susan H. Schmid and K. Elizabeth Cronin for Defendants and Appellants.
David Hoffman for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Opinion by Ortega, Acting P. J., with Vogel Miriam A. and Masterson, JJ., Concurring.
Ortega
We reverse the trial court's order denying defendant physicians' motion to compel arbitration in a medical malpractice case.
BACKGROUND
According to plaintiff Kate Michaelis's brief on appeal, she consulted defendant Dr. Janet Schori for medical care related to her pregnancy. She was under the impression Schori would be solely responsible for her care. During her first visit, Michaelis, 17 years old at the time and living with her parents, signed a binding arbitration agreement, also signed by Schori. The pregnancy appeared to progress routinely. When Michaelis went into labor she checked into the hospital after talking to Schori, who told her defendant Dr. Kim Bader would meet her there.
Bader never showed up. According to Michaelis, the hospital staff failed to detect signs of pregnancy-induced hypertension and the baby, otherwise normal, was stillborn. Disaffirming the arbitration agreement, Michaelis and plaintiff Bodie Stroud, the baby's father, sued the hospital, staff, and the two defendant doctors for medical malpractice.
Schori and Bader appeal the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration per the agreement.
ISSUES
(I) Is a minor entitled to disaffirm such an arbitration agreement? (II) Are plaintiff Stroud and defendant Bader, who didn't sign the agreement, bound by it?
Discussion
"A basic rule of statutory construction is that two potentially conflicting statutes must be construed whenever possible in such a manner that harmonizes and gives effect to both. [Citations.]" (Patricia C. v. Mark D. (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 1218 [16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 71].)
The rule has traditionally been that the "law shields minors from their lack of judgment and experience and under certain conditions vests in them the right to disaffirm their contracts. Although in many instances such disaffirmance may be a hardship upon those who deal with an infant, the right to avoid his contracts is conferred by law upon a minor 'for his protection against his own improvidence and the designs of others.' It is the policy of the law to protect a minor against himself and his indiscretions and immaturity as well as against the machinations of other people and to discourage adults from contracting with an infant. Any loss occasioned by the disaffirmance of a minor's contract might have been avoided by declining to enter into the contract. [Citations.]" (Niemann v. Deverich (1950) 98 Cal. App. 2d 787, 793 [221 P.2d 178].)
But the Legislature decided to make exceptions and enacted several Civil Code provisions dealing with medical care, hospital care, and drug or
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.
|
|