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