The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKINSTER Acting P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Frank Gafkowski, Jr., Judge. (Retired judge of the former L.A. Mun. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Petition granted.
The Law Offices of Larry H. Parker, Inc., Jeffrey R. Billings; Perona, Langer, Beck, Serbin & Mendoza, Ronald Beck and Alvin Chang for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
La Follette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames, Jeffrey R. Erickson; Arnold & Porter, Lawrence A. Cox and Brian K. Condon for Real Parties in Interest.
The court has read and considered the record in this proceeding and has concluded that an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation already made and would cause undue delay in resolving the matter. We therefore issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-179; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223, disapproved on another ground in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4.)
An order compelling arbitration is not appealable, but a party compelled to arbitrate is entitled to have the validity of the order reviewed on appeal from a judgment confirming an award. In La Pietra v. Freed (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 1025, 1031, the court observed that an order compelling arbitration is interlocutory in nature and works no hardship on the litigant because the party who objects to arbitration may win at the arbitration hearing and, if he does not, the issue is reviewable on appeal from the judgment of confirmation.
In exceptional situations, a party aggrieved by an order compelling arbitration may seek writ review of the order. (See Wheeler v. St. Joseph Hospital (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 345, 353.) Petitioner has not shown that arbitration of this claim would be unduly time consuming or expensive. However, writ review is also available if the matters clearly fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Zembsch v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 153, 160.) Here, it appears that petitioner's claim is outside the scope of the agreement. In reaching this conclusion, we uphold the trial court's resolution of disputed facts that are supported by substantial evidence, but if there is no disputed extrinsic evidence, the trial court's decision on the arbitrability determination is reviewed de novo. (Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1511.)
As a preliminary matter, the trial court's interpretation is reasonable that a premises liability claim is arbitrable even if it does not arise out of the provision of medical services. For example, we would agree that a patient's claim is arbitrable if it arises from a trip and fall on a stairway while leaving the facility. Moreover, premises liability is not based solely on a claim that the physical condition of property caused the injury; the condition of the property may be unsafe because of the activity taking place on it. (See Musgrove v. Ambrose Properties (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 44, 51 [plaintiff injured by bicycle ridden ...