Hollister

Hollister v. Benzl

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 341·71 Cal. App. 4th 582·83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903·99 Daily Journal DAR 3719·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2881
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 20, 1999G022570California1,995 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

Jerry S. Benzl, a physician, appeals from the court’s decision to reconsider and vacate its prior order compelling Karen Hollister to arbitrate her medical malpractice lawsuit. We find the court had sufficient grounds to reconsider its prior order but incorrectly ruled on the matter.

I

In 1984, Hollister purchased a medical benefit plan from FHP, Inc. Ten years later, Hollister’s primary care physician referred her to Benzl, a urologie gynecologist specialist. During her first office visit, Benzl’s staff asked Hollister to sign an arbitration agreement and make her customary FHP $5 copayment. She did so.

The following year, Hollister was diagnosed with an advanced stage of cervical cancer and filed the underlying complaint alleging medical negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against FHP, Benzl and several laboratories. She claimed Benzl failed to diagnose and treat her cancer.

After considering the parties’ briefs and oral argument, the court granted Benzl’s petition to compel arbitration. It stayed Hollister’s action against Benzl, stating its tentative ruling was to also stay the remainder of the lawsuit pending completion of the…

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.