Zipkin v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan (Summary)

ARBITRATION

Zipkin v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, B245252 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014)

The California Court of Appeal compelled arbitration between a medical group and its former employee, reversing the lower court’s order.

In June 2011, an OB/GYN called a meeting to complain about inadequate patient care. Later that month, she was accused of providing care to a nonmember. She was put on administrative leave and terminated in November 2011.  She filed a complaint, claiming various code violations as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The medical group filed a motion to compel arbitration consistent with the arbitration clause in her signed partnership agreement. The lower court found that the arbitration clause was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

The appellate court found that even though the arbitration rules were not attached to the arbitration agreement, this was not procedurally unconscionable because the physician had access to those rules online. The court did find that the arbitration clause was a contract of adhesion; however, it involved only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability.  The court held the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because it was not “so one sided as to shock the conscience.”  However, the court did note that provisions of the agreement regarding attorney’s fees and amendment were highly substantively unconscionable, but that they could be severed from the contract.