Meyer

Meyer v. Carnow

Good Law
185 Cal. App. 3d 169·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1997·229 Cal. Rptr. 617·77 A.L.R. 4th 1063
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 1986B016363California1,969 words

Opinion

Opinion

Roth, J.

As authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a), Dorothy Meyer appeals from the superior court’s order denying her petition to compel Dr. Jacob Carnow to arbitrate her medical malpractice claim. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The salient facts are undisputed. In 1978, Meyer was a patient of Dr. Carnow, a podiatrist.

On April 21, 1978, the parties executed a “Treatment and Arbitration Agreement.” It provides, in pertinent part: “In the event of any controversy between the Patient . . . and the Attending Podiatrist . . . involving a claim in tort or contract the same shall be submitted to arbitration. Within fifteen (15) days after the Patient or Attending Podiatrist shall give notice to the other of demanding arbitration of such controversy, the parties to the controversy shall each appoint an arbitrator and give notice of such appointment to the other. Within a reasonable amount of time after such notices have been given the two arbitrators so selected shall select a neutral arbitrator and give notice of the selection thereof to the parties. The arbitrators shall hold a hearing within a reasonable time for [sz'c] the date of notice…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.