Mormile

Mormile v. Sinclair

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·21 Cal. App. 4th 1508·26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 725·94 Daily Journal DAR 727·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 438
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 19, 1994G013485California2,905 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

Alexander Sinclair, M.D., appeals from an order denying his petition to compel arbitration of Gary Mormile’s loss of consortium claim. We reverse.

Discussion

When Mary Mormile first consulted with Sinclair for medical treatment, she signed a physician/patient agreement which provided inter alia: “All Claims Must Be Arbitrated: It is the intention of the parties that this agreement bind all parties whose claims may arise out of or relate to treatment or services provided by the physician, including any spouse or heirs of the patient.” Later, when she became dissatisfied with Sinclair’s treatment, Mary filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, in which her husband, Gary, asserted a loss of consortium cause of action. Sinclair’s petition to compel arbitration was granted as to Mary, but denied as to Gary, the court stating: “[I]n spite of certain cases cited, which I don’t think are applicable . . . whatever Mrs. Mormile signed is not, absolutely not binding on him. I don’t see how it could be.” As we will discuss, the court erred in refusing to compel Gary to arbitrate his claim against Sinclair.

I

Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 is part of the Medical Injury…

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.