Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

In Wheeler, supra, the patient, Mr. Wheeler, arrived at the hospital for cardiac tests (in non-emergency circumstances), and he did not read the Consent to Admission form before signing it The court emphasized that no one at the hospital called his attention to the Arbitration Option paragraph, much less explain its implication or the options available, now was he given a copy of the document. Significantly, because Mr. Wheeler suffered injuries in the hospital that left him unable to communicate, the court relied on the declaration of his wife, who had been present with him during the admission process. It stated, "Whether a person signed a document without reading it is an inference which may rationally be drawn by a percipient witness to the circumstances surrounding the event." Id at 362. The court found that "...the uncontradicted evidence shows that Mr. Wheeler was unaware of the existence of the "Arbitration Option" provision." Id at 361. Moreover, under Wheeler, the general presumption that "... ordinarily one who signs a contract is bound by its terms even though he signs it without reading it was held to be ... inapplicable to adhesion-type contracts." Id at 368.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The principles embodied in Wheeler are paralleled in the present case, especially given the evidence establishing that Mr. Hall arrived at the hospital ER by ambulance, reporting pain at a level of 9-10/10. Given this evidence, Mr. Hall cannot be held responsible to have read and understood the independent contractor clause buried within the Form, nor can this provision of this standard adhesion contract be enforced, as ample authority has firmly established a patient who is in the throes of a medical emergency-or even a non-emergency hospital patient-is not held to the same standards as a healthy individual contemplating a business transaction in a normal situation.

Continue reading " Court Deems Hospital Consent Form A "Contract Of Adhesion" in Sacramento Wrongful Death Suit, Part 9 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

As the Wheeler court made clear, even a patient who arrives at a hospital at his doctor's direction, under non-emergency circumstances will not be held to terms in a standardized, adhesive admission form that go beyond what the patient could reasonably expect to find in such a document absent a clear showing that he or she was made fully aware of such terms.

The Court stated: The application of adhesion contract principles to an arbitration clause in a contract for medical services presents distinct problems concerning the patient's awareness of the contractual provision and his understanding assent thereto. As Professor Henderson points out in his comprehensive article entitled Contractual Problems in the Enforcement of Agreements to Arbitrate Medical Malpractice, supra, 58 Va.L.Rev. 947, at page 987: Given the distinctive nature of the medical services transaction, the use of a standardized form runs the risk of failing to satisfy the policy of awareness.

The arbitration provision, viewed from the perspective of the patient, is indeed subsidiary to the primary exchange of medical services for an undertaking of payment after consenting to medical procedures, the contract purchaser of medical services may fairly assume that no obligations other than that of payment are imposed. Absent some guidance by the medical entity, the patient has little reason to know anything at all about arbitration, let alone that the tendered document requires it. Nor should the medical entity ordinarily expect a patient to read or even to understand a broad arbitration clause. Id at 357-358.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital Tries To Force Arbitration On Family In Wrongful Death Case, Part 8 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

Moreover, the Wheeler court stressed that even a favored arbitration provision in an adhesion contract cannot be enforced unless it was knowingly and voluntarily entered into by both parties. It emphasized, "... notwithstanding the cogency of the policy favoring arbitration and despite frequent judicial utterances that because of that policy every intendment must be indulged in favor of finding an agreement to arbitrate, the policy favoring arbitration cannot displace the necessity for a voluntary agreement to arbitrate." Wheeler, supra, 63 Cal. App. 3d at 356.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Key to this analysis is the requirement that in order to be enforceable, terms in an adhesion contract must be of a type that the parties to such an agreement would reasonably expect to find in the contract. As the Bruni court explained, “ ... a provision contained in [an adhesion] contract cannot be enforced if it does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or adhering party." Bruni, supra at 1289. The Wheeler court pointed out that reasonable expectations of the hospital patient presented with an admission form are significantly different that those of one in a business or employment setting, stating, "... insofar as awareness is concerned, the atmosphere of the employer's office ... is a far cry from that of a hospital admission room." Id at 363. It further explained, "A patient like Mr. Wheeler realistically has no choice but to seek admission to the hospital to which he has been directed by his physician and to sign the printed forms necessary to gain admission. To posit otherwise would require us to ignore the stress, anxiety, and urgency which ordinarily beset a patient seeking hospital admission." Id at 366.

Continue reading " Sacramento Patient Forced To Sign Hospital Consent Form Under Duress, Part 7 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

In contrast, in our case, the analysis is not burdened by the policy favoring arbitration. Instead, there are at least two strong public policies weighing against the clause's enforceability that must be taken into account: one disfavoring exculpatory provisions in hospital admission agreements purporting to limit liability without clear explanation to the patient; and another favoring the availability of essential medical services to all patients in order to serve the public interest. See Id.

See also, Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 158, 161-162 (Explaining, "...the hospital patient contract clearly falls within the category of agreements affecting the public interest" while distinguishing releases signed by participants in sports or recreational activities, because "... athletic or recreational activities, however enjoyable or beneficial, are not essential, as a hospital is to a patient" [citing Tunkl, supra at 92]); see also Health Net of California, Inc. v. Dept. Of Health Services (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 224, 237 (wherein the court, citing Tunkl, concluded that "... an exculpatory clause that is part of a transaction that provides managed health care for Medi-Cal beneficiaries affects the public interest."); City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 747, 762. (See Part 7 of 9.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Family Fights Hospital Over Preventable Wrongful Death, Part 6 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

Perhaps nowhere is the import of these principles more apparent than in the context of the hospital emergency room (ER). California law has long held that especially where, as here, a patient arrives at the ER in a condition impaired by a serious injury or illness, hospital admission forms purporting to circumscribe the hospital's liability constitute adhesion contracts. As the California Supreme Court recognized in Tunkl v. Board of Regents (1963) 60 Cal. 2d 92, 93 The would-be patient is in no position to reject the proffered agreement, to bargain with the hospital, or in lieu of agreement to find another hospital.

The admission room of a hospital contains no bargaining table where, as in a private business transaction, the parties can debate the terms of their contract. As a result, we cannot but conclude that the instant agreement manifested the characteristics of the so-called adhesion contract ... " Id at 102; see also Wheeler, supra, 63 C.A.3d at 357 (wherein the court, relying on Tunkel, held that a hospital's standard printed "Conditions of Admission" constitutes an adhesion contract, especially because a patient being admitted to a hospital is in no position to debate his or her terms of admission).

Significantly, while the admission agreement in Tunkl involved a clause purporting to waive liability, Wheeler involved an arbitration clause-a provision freighted with public policy concerns favoring its application.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital Claims Patient Waived Rights In Wrongful Death Case, Part 5 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

The Consent to Admission Form, or at least the "Independent Contractor" provision, constitutes an unenforceable adhesion contract.

The evidence of record established these facts as undisputed:

1. The admission form signed by Mr. Hall at Universal contained a provision characterizing Universal physicians as independent contractors, which was located approximately two-thirds down from the top of the document.

2. This independent contractor provision was in the same small print as the rest of the document, was not in bold type, highlighted, or in any way emphasized or set apart from the rest of the text so as to draw the reader's notice. Absolutely no evidence was offered suggesting that Mr. Hall's attention was drawn to this provision in any way, either in writing or orally.

3. Mr. Hall was required to sign the form in order to receive admission and treatment at Universal, and had little if any bargaining power under the circumstances (which he was incapable of exercising at that time, even if it existed).

A contract of adhesion has been defined as " ... a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it." Bruni v. Didion (4th App. Dist. 2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1272, 1289. Stated another way, " ... a contract of adhesion is a standardized contract drafted by the party with stronger bargaining power, such that the weaker party has no choice other than to accept it or reject it." Id at 1291.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Hospital's Delay Results In Patient's Wrongful Death, Part 4 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

Stanhope was among the authority relied on by the Fourth Appellate District Court in Mejia at 1448, 1454-1459, wherein the Mejia court noted that this rule applies with greater force in cases where the plaintiff-patient is seen in the emergency room, emphasizing its agreement with "...the Stanhope holding that emergency room patients cannot be expected to inquire as to whether treating physicians are independent contractors." Mejia involved a plaintiff whose broken neck was allegedly misdiagnosed by ER physicians, resulting in paralysis. Surveying the law of other jurisdictions, the court observed, " ...because it is commonly believed that hospitals are the actual providers of care, ostensible agency can be readily inferred whenever someone seeks treatment at a hospital." Id at 1456. The Court concluded California law should be interpreted consistently with this majority view.

Alternatively, if Mr. Hall signed the "Consent to Admission" form after receiving a dose of Dilaudid, an opiate-based narcotic, it may be presumed that his judgment was impaired, particularly given the long duration of his severe pain prior to receiving the medication and his declining vital signs. Either way, this dying man could not be held responsible to analyze a legal document he was required to sign in order to receive treatment to ease his misery, as a matter of law. See Mejia, supra, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 1454, 1458-1459.

The application of this general principle-that patients who enter a medical facility under circumstances indicating that they are unable to effectively consider and accept the terms of an agreement they must sign in order to be admitted should not be bound by its terms-has been applied in a broad range of situations. It extends even to patients who are not in pain, medicated, or seeking admission on an emergency basis.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Wrongful Death Suit Involves "Consent To Admission" For Sacramento Patient, Part 3 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this wrongful death case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury action and its proceedings.)

THE PHYSICIANS WHO DEALT WITH MR. HALL AT UNIVERSAL WERE OSTENSIBLE AGENTS OF THE HOSPITAL, AS A MATTER OF LAW

A. Because he was gravely ill and in severe pain, Mr. Hall lacked the capacity to validly execute a contract, purporting to contain a waiver of rights.

The evidence of record has established these facts as undisputed:

1. Mr. Hall signed the Universal admission form at about the same time he was admitted to the hospital floor on August 11,2008, which the records indicate was approximately 10:30 p.m.

2. At that time of his admission, Mr. Hall had been suffering pain he reported to be 9 - 10/10 for nearly 2 1/2 hours.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

3. Mr. Hall's Universal chart indicates that at approximately 10:30 p.m., he was finally given an intravenous dose of two to three milligrams of Dilaudid (with the usual dose ranging from one to two milligrams when so administered). Dilaudid is a narcotic pain reliever that takes immediate effect when given intravenously, and which may impair thinking and judgment.

Continue reading " Sacramento Personal Injury Case Involves Patient's Wrongful Death, Part 2 of 9 " »