Arbitration Applies to Wrongful Death Claims Tied to Medical Care.

Faiaipau v. THC-Orange County, LLC (Dec. 19, 2025, A171351) __ Cal.App.5th __ (2025 WL 3704596)

Parties who agree to arbitrate medical negligence claims must arbitrate wrongful death claim alleging inadequate provision of healthcare.

Ana Faiaipau was admitted to a long-term acute care hospital to recover from heart surgery. After she died at the facility, her successors-in-interest sued the hospital for negligence, Elder Abuse neglect, fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the unfair competition law (UCL), and wrongful death. The wrongful death claim turned on the hospital’s alleged failure to monitor Ana’s ventilator, which became disconnected, leading to a fatal anoxic brain injury. The hospital moved to compel arbitration of all claims based on an arbitration agreement signed on Ana’s behalf at the time she was admitted. The trial court ordered arbitration of the negligence and elder neglect claims, but denied arbitration of the wrongful death, fraud, and UCL claims. The hospital appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed in part, expanding the trial court’s arbitration order to include the wrongful death claim in addition to the negligence and elder neglect claims. Relying on Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 364, the court distinguished claims arising out of the hospital’s acts or omissions in its capacity as a health care provider, from claims arising out of the hospital’s acts or omissions as an elder custodian. Failing to monitor a ventilator is medical negligence, not custodial neglect, because it concerns the hospital’s alleged inadequate provision of medical care rather than its failing to provide custodial care. Because the parties had agreed to arbitrate medical negligence claims, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 applies to such agreements, plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim was subject to arbitration. The court distinguished Delany v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 34-35, explaining that Holland “drew a clear line between the types of activities that constitute professional negligence and neglect, rather than relying on differences in [the] mental state” of the healthcare provider.

The bulletin describing this appellate decision was originally prepared for the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys (CSHA) by H. Thomas Watson, Peder K. Batalden, and Lacey Estudillo at the appellate firm Horvitz & Levy LLP, and is republished with permission.

For more information regarding this bulletin, please contact H. Thomas Watson, Horvitz & Levy LLP, at 818-995-0800 or htwatson@horvitzlevy.com.