Kaiser Found. Health Plan v. Guthrie CA2/8

Filed 6/1/15 Kaiser Found. Health Plan v. Guthrie CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN B257774 et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. PS015083)

v.

MICHAEL GUTHRIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Pfahler, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Guthrie, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McKenna & Peabody, Michael J. Trotter, Brenda M. Ligorsky and David P. Pruett for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

*********

This is an appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award and denying a request to vacate the award. Respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser) moved for an order confirming the arbitration award. Appellant Michael Guthrie asked the court to vacate the award. Mr. Guthrie argued the award was obtained by fraud or other undue means and the misconduct of the arbitrator caused him substantial prejudice. The trial court decided “there is no basis for a finding that the award was obtained by fraud or undue means, that the arbitrator committed any misconduct, or that [Mr. Guthrie] suffered any prejudice as a result of the conduct of the arbitrator.” We affirm. BACKGROUND After the death of Mr. Guthrie’s mother, he asserted a claim in arbitration that her death was caused by Kaiser’s malpractice. An arbitration award was rendered in favor of Kaiser in 2007. That award is not part of the record of this appeal. The parties disagree as to what happened in that first arbitration. It appears to be undisputed, however, that Mr. Guthrie did not call an expert to testify in support of his malpractice claim, contending that was unnecessary since his mother’s medical records established as a matter of common understanding that Kaiser’s malpractice caused her death. Other proceedings ensued. The parties disagree about the number of subsequent arbitration demands Mr. Guthrie made, and we need not decide how many there were. The arbitration in dispute in this appeal commenced when Mr. Guthrie filed a demand for arbitration dated January 16, 2013. In the demand for arbitration, Mr. Guthrie sought to “impeach” the findings and order of an arbitrator dated November 28, 2012, which Mr. Guthrie asserted were obtained by fraud. The November 28, 2012 findings and order are not part of the record of this appeal. In this arbitration, Mr. Guthrie filed a motion for summary judgment with the arbitrator. Kaiser filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration. Neither motion is a part of the record on appeal. The arbitrator did not issue a ruling on Mr. Guthrie’s motion for summary judgment. Instead, on November 5, 2013, the arbitrator granted Kaiser’s