Source: http://mauralarkins.com/kaiserarbitration.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:09:06+00:00

Document:
the mistakes in the future.
today is the universal form of required dispute resolution for Kaiser Permanente.
parties to screen for bias and possible conflicts of interest.
the proposed neutral arbitrators should be included in that mailing.
performance of potential neutral arbitrators.
the name and location of the Kaiser facility.
medical benefit by contracting exclusively with The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
is enforced and Kaiser informs patients of their rights.
so it just doesn't care."
Physician would only have the best interest of the patient at heart.
all on the patients premium cost.
so costs for medical experts, etc.
employment at the movies, etc.
really just trying to intimidate you.
told these people about you.
you, if your attorney allows it.
not want it done to them as well.
to you drop your legal action.
you have lied on your taxes.
again Kaiser may do this to you.
paying for it, time is money.
wrong to be further destroyed.
hurry to do so on their own.
it but this is harmful to your case.
back. See it for what it is.
Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
On June 30, 1997, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Engalla v.
in the terms of a medical insurance agreement.
due to its dilatory conduct.
clauses, courts limit their analysis to issues of creation and initial consent to such clauses.
of the KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
33%. None was a pro per claimant.
that the arbitration process itself is unfair.
(24 percent) of the time.
Petition for review by the California Supreme Court.
ongoing and the physician has a contractual obligation to provide a fair arbitration.
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, et al., Respondents.
filed April 18, 2005, is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Petition.
arbitration through exercise of diligence.
where the beneficiary institutes legal proceedings against them.
dependent on their physicians to continue to comply with their duty of full disclosure.
performed blood tests in an effort to determine if he had a hypercoagulable condition (i.
e., abnormal clotting of the blood) that could be treated by anti-clotting medication.
treat with anticlotting medication caused the condition resulting in amputation).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
diligence in unearthing the fraud.
in this case raises an important question of law.
Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810.
to the questions determined in the action. (Pico v. Cohn (1891) 91 Cal. 129, 133-134).
perjury or withholding of evidence. (Id.; see also, 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed.
trials, not cases where awards were entered after summary arbitration proceedings.
vacate the award] and Mansdorf v. California Physicians' Service, Inc. (1978) 87 Cal.
have been raised" by a petition to vacate under section 1286.2].
awards subject to vacatur for intrinsic fraud, including false testimony (id., at 829-30).
stipulated that the issues were limited in a manner that excluded the newlyraised issue.
evidence in an arbitration . . . ." (Pacific Crown Distributors, supra, 183 Cal.App. at p.
supports the abandonment of the extrinsic fraud rule in arbitration cases.
fraud be regarded as extrinsic or as an exception to the extrinsic fraud rule.
make full disclosure of all material facts].
not consciously be lowered by any judgment of this court.
Meinhard v. Salmon, supra, 249 NY at p. 464 (citation omitted).
even if the unsuccessful party cannot show that he could not have discovered the lie.
Inc., supra, 835 F.2d at p. 1383).
party serves only to tear away at the arbitration process.
the three-part federal vacatur test well may be appropriate.
between Rushford and his treating physicians in the context of his medical treatment,"
arbitration proceedings. (See In re Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 28, 35)."
Petitioners submit that the Court's reasoning was wrong.
120, 131; Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172,1188; Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Co.
(1944) 25 Cal.2d 226, 235).
medical facts regarding his medical condition and physical injuries.
disclosure" to the patient of "all facts which materially affected his rights and interests".
material information relevant to the patient's medical condition and medical treatment.
disclosure must be discharged. R. Chalos, The Law of Fiduciary Duties (2000), § 3:41.
court can declare it discharged.
as they always had been.
occupies a position of trust which is not terminated as to assets remaining in his hands.
Cal.App.2d at p. 653). In Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (Boltwood) (2000) 22 Cal.
retained in the matter of the petition.
consider themselves free, in a way we do not, to create exceptions to the privilege."
owed an independent, contractual duty to provide a fair arbitration to Mr. Rushford.
breaches a contractual duty owed the other party. (Hines. supra, 424 U.S. at 568-571).
deprives it of arm's length status.
fairness and integrity of mandatory arbitration schemes in medical malpractice cases.
heightened vacatur standard. Accordingly, the Petition for Review should be granted.
Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1188 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bowman v. McPheeters (1947) 77 Cal. App. 2d 795, 800-801. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., et. al. (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 951; 980-989 . . .
Estate of Anderson (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 336 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Garlock v. Cole (1962) 199 Cal. App. 2d 11, 16-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In re Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 28, 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In re Marriage of Modnick (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 897, 904-905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lamb v. Holy Cross Hospital (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 1007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mansdorf v. California Physicians' Service, Inc. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 412 . . . . . . . . .
Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 120, 131 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 226, 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1977) 68 Cal. App. 3d 811 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rosenfeld v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sapp v. Superior Court of State, in and for Los Angeles County (1953) 119 Cal. App.
Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal. 2d 767, 775-779 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (Boltwood) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 206, 208, 209 .
Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co. (2002) 310 Mont. 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lockett v. Goodill (1967) 71 Wash.2d 654, 656 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lownsbury v. VanBuren (2002) 94 Ohio St.3d 231, 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State ex rel. McCloud v. Seier (Mo. 1978) 567 S.W.2d 127, 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teamsters Local Union #11 Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc.
v Abad (1975) 135 NJ Super 552 revd on other grounds 144 NJ Super 239 . . . . . . . . .
Wargo v. Buck (1997) 123 Ohio App.3d 110, 122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (11th Cir. 1988) 835 F.2d 1378 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 1982) 679 F.2d 1293 cert denied 459 U.S.
Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. (1976) 424 U.S. 554, 568, 568-571 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intern. Broth. Teamsters, Local 519 v. U.P.S. (6th Cir. 2003) 335 F.3d 497 . . . . . . . . . .
8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Attack on Judgment in Trial Court, § 223 . . . . .
11 C. Wright & A. Miller Federal Practice and Procedure p. 2868 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freeman, Judgments (5th ed. 1925), Section 1235, p. 2576 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ian R. MacNeil, American Arbitration Law (1992) 15- 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jerold S. Auerbach, Justice Without Law? (1983) 101-114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R. Chalos, The Law of Fiduciary Duties (2000) § 3:41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
constitute fraud under [9 U.S.C.] § 10(a)]; Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (9th Cir.
availability) due to the surge of medical malpractice actions and high jury awards.
between merchants of equal sophistication and bargaining power. (See, e.g., Kloss v.
worked at The Charles R.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 223
 § 3
 § 10
 v. 
 v.