Daily Blast June 14, 2017

Today, the Third District Court of Appeal (Sacramento) issued an opinion regarding whether an attorney-in-fact who admitted her principal to a residential care facility for the elderly made a “health care” decision. In Hutcheson v. Eskaton FountainWood Lodge (June 14, 2017, C074846) __ Cal.App.5th __, the court held that “admission of decedent to the residential care center for the elderly was a health care decision and the attorney-in-fact who admitted her, acting under the Power of Attorney Law (Probate Code, section 4000 et seq. (PAL)), was not authorized to make health care decisions on behalf of the principal.” (Slip opn., p. 2.)

The decedent executed a health care power of attorney under the Health Care Decisions Law (Probate Code, section 4600 et seq. (HCDL)) and appointed her niece, plaintiff Robin Hutcheson (Hutcheson), as her attorney-in-fact. A few years later, the decedent executed a personal care power of attorney under the PAL and appointed her sister, plaintiff Jean Charles (Charles), and Hutcheson as her attorneys-in-fact. Charles admitted the decedent to defendant residential care facility and signed the admission agreement on behalf of the decedent, which contained an arbitration clause. Several months after being admitted, the decedent choked on her lunch and was taken to hospital where she died a few weeks later. Plaintiffs Hutcheson and Charles sued the residential care facility. The trial court denied the residential care facility’s motion to compel arbitration. (Slip opn., pp. 2-6.)

The Court of Appeal affirmed. “[T]he attorney-in-fact under the PAL did not have authority to admit the principal to the residential care facility for the elderly, [therefore] her execution of the admission and its arbitration clause are void.” (Slip opn., 2.) The court explained that the case turned on whether the attorney-in-fact’s admission of her principal to the healthcare facility was a “health care decision” for purposes of the two sets of power of attorney statutes—the PAL and the HCDL. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Under California law, the personal care power of attorney under the PAL allows the attorney-in-fact to make decisions regarding the principal’s personal care and claims and litigation, and to enter into contracts to accomplish those purposes. (Id. at p. 7.) A personal care power of attorney under PAL does not authorize an attorney-in-fact to make decisions regarding the principal’s health care. Thus, the appellate court concluded “under the facts of this case . . . admitting [the decedent] to [the residential care facility] was a health care decision under the HCDL and thus not within Charles’s scope of authority under her statutory form power of attorney.” (Id. at p. 8)   

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate