Pietrelli v. Peacock

Opinion

SMITH, Acting P. J.

Defendant Gordon Peacock, M.D., appeals from an order denying his petition to compel arbitration of a claim brought by plaintiff Robert Pietrelli, a minor, for medical malpractice. The issue here is whether plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement which was signed by his mother at a time when plaintiff was both unborn and unconceived. We conclude that plaintiff was so bound and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Background

On July 28, 1981, plaintiff’s mother, Mrs. Jerri Pietrelli, who was not pregnant at the time, signed a contract in which she agreed to submit any dispute regarding medical services rendered by defendant to binding arbitration. The document, entitled “Arbitration Agreement” stated in pertinent part, “Any controversy between me and Doctor concerning medical care

and any such controversy between Doctor and persons, bom or unborn, on behalf of whom I have the power to contract

shall be submitted to Final and Binding Arbitration in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 2 below.” (Italics added.) Mrs. Pietrelli subsequently became pregnant and received obstetric care from defendant.

Plaintiff was born on October 3, 1982. On September 12, 1990, plaintiff, through Mrs. Pietrelli as his guardian ad litem, filed a complaint against defendant for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the care and treatment he received from defendant at or around the time of his birth.

[946]

Defendant responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement quoted above. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the principal ground that he was not a party covered by the agreement. In its order denying the petition, the court “found that the language in the Arbitration Agreement did not bind children not yet conceived at the time the Arbitration Agreement was signed, and that reference to ‘persons, born or unborn,’ did not pertain to those not yet conceived.”

Defendant appeals from the order.

Appeal

“This state has a strong public policy favoring arbitration over litigation as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution which eases court congestion. [Citations.]”