According to the California Court of Appeal, mere spousal status does not confer upon a patient's spouse the authority to bind the patient to an arbitration agreement with a health care provider.

In Hatley v. Superior Court, No. F052747, 2008 WL 240841 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2008), the Court considered whether a spousal relationship with a decedent was sufficient authority by itself to bind the decedent to arbitrate claims against a health care facility upon execution of an admissions contract with an arbitration agreement. Upon the California Supreme Court's remand on the issue, the Court directed the parties to show cause as to why the facility's motion to compel arbitration should not be vacated.

On remand, the defendant health care facility cited no authority for the proposition that one's status as a patient's spouse was sufficient alone to bind the patient to an arbitration agreement.

The Court agreed that next-of-kin were authorized to make medical treatment decisions on behalf of a patient without capacity to consent under CAL. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE § 1418.8. But, the Court noted that no statute similarly granted next-of-kin the authority to bind the patient to an arbitration agreement.

Hanford's contention that a spouse's statutory "duty to support" under CAL. FAMILY CODE § 4300 authorized the spouse to enter an arbitration agreement on the patient's behalf was similarly rejected. According to the Court, nothing in that provision's definition of "support," encompassing the "means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort suitable and becoming to his station in life," explicitly or implicitly included the authority to agree to arbitration.

Furthermore, the Court cited Cal. Health and Safety Code § 1599.81, which required that any arbitration agreement be separate from the related admission contract, and that assent to the agreement could not be a precondition to treatment. To the Court, this suggested that legislators had "recognized that an arbitration agreement is not an essential part of the nursing home care to be provided," and could not be considered a valid exercise of a spouse's statutory duty of support.

Finally, the Court held that Hatley could not be bound to arbitrate her own wrongful death claim against Hanford because her signature appeared on the forms as that of the "Resident Representative" and not as an individual.