Legal Opinion

Malek v. Blue Cross of California

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 29, 2004No. B168146PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

In this appeal, we must determine the consequences of failing to comply with the arbitration disclosure requirements of Health & Safety Code section 1363.1. That statute requires health care service plans to disclose in clear and understandable language, appearing “as a separate article” and “prominently displayed on the enrollment form” “immediately before the signature line” that the plan requires binding arbitration of any dispute, and that both parties are giving up their constitutional right to have the dispute decided in a court of law. Blue Cross’s enrollment form…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. Robertson v. Health Net of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. ZEMBSCH v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. SWAB FINANCIAL v. E Trade SecuritiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API