This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Health Care
Medical Provider
California Patient's Bill of Rights

Valley View Health Care Inc., Stonebrook Convalescent Center, Lifehouse Parkview Operations LLC, Beverly Healthcare - California Inc., CF Modesto LLC, Avalon Care Center -Merced Franciscan LLC, California Association of Health Facilities v. Ronald Chapman, California Department of Public Health

Published: Jun. 28, 2014 | Result Date: Jan. 16, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:13-cv-00036-LJO-BAM Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Katherine R. Miller

Mark E. Reagan
(Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, P.C.)

Scott J. Kiepen
(Hooper, Lundy & Bookman PC)

Felicia Sze

Joshua LaMagan


Defendant

Pauline Gee

Ashante L. Norton
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Valley View Health Care Inc., Stonebrook Convalescent Center, Lifehouse Parkview Operations LLC, Beverly Healthcare - California Inc., CF Modesto LLC, Avalon Care Center -Merced Franciscan LLC, and California Association of Health Facilities sued Ronald Chapman, Director of the California Dept. of Public Health, challenging the validity of California statutes and regulations to restrict skilled nursing facilities' arbitration of the Patients' Bill of Rights pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code.

Plaintiffs are licensed skilled nursing facilities. The California Association of Health Facilities is a nonprofit association that represents skilled nursing facilities

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that the arbitration provision under the Patient's Bill of Rights was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, and were void because they prohibited skilled nursing facilities' arbitration agreements to cover claims arising out of the Patient's Bill of Rights. Plaintiffs also filed for summary judgment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants sought summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a cognizable claim.

Result

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and declared the challenged arbitration laws invalid, unlawful, and preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act to the extent that they bar arbitration of Patient's Bill of Rights claims. Additionally, the court enjoined defendants from enforcing the challenged arbitration laws.


#82873

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390