Case Number: BC594168??? Hearing Date: June 02, 2016??? Dept: S27
EXHIBITS
Defendants have attached five exhibits to their Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Exhibit A: The 2015 contract between the Office of Personnel Management and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.;
Exhibit B: The 2015 Federal Employee Health Benefits brochure.;
Exhibit C: Kaiser Information Sheet for Federal Employees.;
Exhibit D: Rules of Kaiser Permanente Arbitrations Administered by the Office of Independent Administrator.;
Exhibit E: Computerized Eligibility Print-Out/Membership History.
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
Plaintiff contends that she did not sign any arbitration agreement or receive a copy of the Federal Employees Health Benefits brochure. While it is true that Plaintiff?s signature does not appear on any of the attached documents, Plaintiff does not deny that she sought medical care as a member of the health plan. Plaintiff has in fact been enrolled in the health plan through FEHBA since June 26, 2005 (Exhibit E). Furthermore, 5 U.S.C section 8902(a) expressly authorizes the OPM to negotiate contracts with ?qualified carriers? on behalf of federal employees. Case law is clear that even in the context of arbitration agreements, ?contract provisions, as well as amendments to the contract, negotiated by the board within scope of its authority as an agent, bind those employees who enroll under the contract.”
Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal. App. 3d 699, 706
SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
The attached Arbitration Agreement defines the scope of Arbitration as:
?The claim arises from or is related to an alleged violation of any duty incident to or relating to this EOC or a Member Party?s relationship to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., (Health Plan), including any claim for medical or hospital malpractice, for premises liability, or relating to the coverage for, or delivery of, services or items, irrespective of the legal theories upon which the claim is asserted.? (Exhibit C, page 8)
Plaintiff contends that any arbitration agreement does not apply to intentional torts and that sexual battery was not contemplated as an arbitrable cause of action. The Court disagrees. This incident arose out of the improper medical care that Plaintiff received under the health plan. This allegation of improper medical care is in fact incorporated by reference in all four causes of action in the Plaintiff?s Complaint for Damages. (Complaint paragraphs 13, 22, 23, 27, 32, and 38)
RULING
The Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.