Tidwell v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Background

Edward C. Tidwell brought claims concerning the alleged wrongful death of his daughter and the alleged mishandling of her remains and evidence related to her death. The defendants included Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., together referred to as Kaiser; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, together referred to as the Federal Defendants; and Kaiser Permanente.

Kaiser moved to compel arbitration. The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Tidwell also moved to restore the entry of default against Kaiser Permanente. The order states that Tidwell had amended his complaint to address claims against Trident, but that amendment did not include claims against the other defendants. The court allowed another opportunity to amend, with a Second Amended Complaint due April 3, 2026.

Arbitration

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act, which generally requires enforcement of arbitration agreements unless a contract-law ground exists to revoke the agreement. The court considered whether a valid arbitration agreement existed and whether it covered Tidwell’s claims.

The agreement appeared in the 2022 Evidence of Coverage for the daughter’s Kaiser Senior Advantage Medicare Medi-Cal plan. It required binding arbitration for disputes arising from or relating to the coverage, the delivery of services or items, or the member’s relationship with Kaiser. The agreement defined covered “member Parties” to include a member’s heir, relative, or personal representative.

Although Tidwell did not personally agree to the Evidence of Coverage, the court held that his daughter’s arbitration agreement bound him. The court also held that the agreement covered the claims alleged against Kaiser.

Tidwell argued that the arbitration provision was invalid because it did not comply with California Health and Safety Code section 1363.1. The court held that federal law preempted that California disclosure requirement as applied to the daughter’s Medicare Medi-Cal plan, so the court could not use section 1363.1 to invalidate the arbitration provision.

The court rejected Tidwell’s unconscionability argument. It found that the procedural concerns associated with a contract of adhesion did not apply in the same way to the heavily regulated, system-wide Medi-Cal plan, and Tidwell did not identify a term so one-sided as to be unacceptable. The court also rejected his waiver argument because Kaiser moved to compel arbitration ten days after being served and Tidwell had not shown that Kaiser intentionally abandoned its contractual right to arbitrate.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court granted Kaiser’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the claims against Kaiser pending arbitration. A stay pauses the court proceedings on those claims while arbitration occurs.

The court denied the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice because it had granted Tidwell another opportunity to amend his complaint. The court denied Tidwell’s motion to restore the entry of default because it found that Kaiser Permanente was not a valid legal entity subject to suit. The order states that it disposed of docket entries 82, 84, 91, 102, and 121, but the provided text does not clearly identify the disposition of every one of those docket entries.