Goliger

Goliger v. AMS Properties, Inc.

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 4th 374·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1756·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12911·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9460
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 2004B166686California1,207 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

AMS Properties, Inc., appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Seventy-eight-year-old Mary Goliger (Goliger or mother) had hip surgery in November 2000. During her recuperation, she moved to Tarzana Rehabilitation Center, a 24-hour residential health care facility owned by appellant AMS Properties, Inc. (AMS or the center). Goliger’s daughter, Ruth Binshtock, signed the center’s admission form as a “responsible party” for her mother. According to the form, a “ ‘Responsible Party’ means Ruth Binshtock, [Goliger’s] sponsoring agency, other payor or payor representative, next of kin, Agent, Legal Representative, Family Member or any person other than [Goliger], if any, who has voluntarily agreed to become, and is, personally responsible or hable for, payment of any or all of the charges incurred by [Goliger] while in the Facility.” The form also provided a place for Binshtock to sign as her mother’s “agent,” which she left blank. In addition, the admissions packet contained two arbitration agreements, one covering medical malpractice and the second covering other torts, breach of contract, and claims…

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.