FACTS: /1, 253 Cal.Rptr. 820 (2nd Dist. 1988 On August 16, 1984, Steven Gross arranged to Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable have Doctor Fister remove a mole from the left issues must be resolved in favor of arbitration side of his scalp and a cyst from the base of his The contract signed by Steven Gross cannot, scalp. These two procedures were performed on on its face, reasonably be said to be limited only August 16 and August 23 but only after Gross had to those services provided contemporaneous signed a written agreement to submit to arbitration to its signing. While we need not attempt to "any dispute as to medical malpractice." Eighteen define Its full reach, we are satisfied that, at the months later Gross returned to have a lesion on very least, it was intended to encompass those situations where Gross, in the course of an ohpoing his nose examined. It was identified as a grade III doctor-patient relationship, sought treatment for a squamous cell carcinoma. condition of the type that initially brought him o One On May 5, 1986, Doctor Fister's associate, Doctor Fister's office. Recabaren, performed the radical surgery that As we stressed in Hilleary v. Garvin, 193 Cal. became the subject of this lawsuit for medical App.3d at page 326, "To impose upon a physician, malpractice. The defendants contend that the during a continuous doctor-patient relationship, malpractice claim of Gross is subject to the the extra burden of having to renew the arbitration arbitration agreement. Gross contends that the agreement each time there is a variation in arbitration agreement he signed covers only the treatment or ailment would be impractical and 1984 medical treatment and that the 1986 surgery would frustrate the purpose of the statute, which s subject to litigation because he did not sign an is to facilitate, not emasculate, the arbitration arbitration agreement for that treatment. process." The trial court determined that the arbitration Although the course of treatment Gross received in 1984 and 1986 differed, in each instance he agreement did not cover the 1986 medical sought medical services for the treatment of similar services. The doctors appealed. problems, i.e., potentially malignant skin lesions on his face and head. Fortunately, the mole and DECISION: GATES, Justice cyst for which he initially sought aid were benign, Because the scope of arbitration is a matter of necessitating only minor surgery. The nasal cyst, agreement between the parties, "the court should on the other hand, was malignant and a more attempt to give effect to their intentions, in light of radical approach was undertaken. the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual Apart from Steven Gross's statements concerning language and the circumstances under which the his uncommunicated subjective intent, which were. agreement was made" ( Victoria v. Superior Court, of course, irrelevant (Hilleary v. Garvin, supra. 193 (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 [222 Cal. Rptr. 1, 710 Cal.App.3d at p. 327), there was simply no D 2 93371