Dougherty

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and respondent, Christine Matlock Dougherty sued defendant and

appellant, U.S. Behavioral Health Plan, California (USB), for claims associated with her

son’s healthcare. USB petitioned to compel arbitration of her claims, but the trial court

denied the petition on the ground that USB’s arbitration agreement was not enforceable

because it did not comply with the disclosure requirements imposed by Health & Safety

Code section 1363.1 (section 1363.1).

USB argues the trial court’s order should be reversed for three reasons: (1) the

parties’ arbitration agreement delegated the issue of whether the agreement is enforceable

to the arbitrator, (2) the arbitration agreement between Dougherty and USB’s affiliate

complied with section 1363.1 and covers her claims, and (3) the Federal Arbitration Act

(9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempts section 1363.1.

We conclude USB forfeited its delegation-clause argument, but we agree with

USB that the trial court erroneously denied USB’s petition because USB complied with

section 1363.1. We therefore reverse and need not address USB’s preemption argument.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Dougherty enrolled…