Haworth

Haworth v. Superior Court

Good Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 930
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 28, 2008B204354California9,604 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bostwick & Associates, Jeffrey S. Mitchell; Dunn & Koes, Pamela E. Dunn, Daniel J. Koes and Mayo L. Makarczyk for Real Party in Interest.

Petitioners Randal D. Haworth and The Beverly Hills Surgical Center, Inc. (collectively referred to as Haworth), seek a writ of mandate directing respondent court to reinstate an arbitration award in their favor. The arbitration award found Haworth not liable on claims of medical malpractice and battery in relation to cosmetic surgery that Haworth performed on Susan Amy Ossakow (Ossakow). Respondent court vacated the award on the ground that one of the arbitrators failed to disclose that when he was a sitting judge he received a public censure by the California Supreme Court for disparaging his female employees and colleagues based on their physical attributes, sexuality, and ethnicity. Because respondent court correctly concluded that the arbitrator's censure would cause a reasonable person to doubt his impartiality, we hold that the arbitration award was properly set aside and deny the petition.

On September 11, 2003, Haworth performed an elective cosmetic procedure on Ossakow's lips. It was the fifth cosmetic procedure…

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.