In Garrison v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 253, a daughter, who was designated as her mother's attorney-in-fact under a health care power of attorney, signed her mother into a health care facility. (Id. at p. 256.) At the time the daughter did so, she signed two arbitration agreements, one pertaining to medical malpractice claims and one pertaining to all other claims against the facility. (Id. at pp. 256, 259-261.) Following the death of the mother, the daughter and certain other family members filed suit against the facility, collectively asserting causes of action for elder abuse, negligence, fraud, unlawful business practices and wrongful death. (Id. at pp. 256-257.) The facility moved to compel arbitration. (Id. at p. 262.) The trial court granted the motion and the appellate court agreed that the daughter had the authority to enter into the arbitration agreements on her mother's behalf. (Id. at pp. 262, 266.) The health care power of attorney at issue in Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 253 was not created via a standard form Probate Code section 4701 document, as was the one before us. However, the Garrison health care power of attorney provided that it was created under Probate Code section 4600 et seq., which, as stated previously, also applies to the health care power of attorney Sarah executed. (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 258.) Moreover, the Garrison health care power of attorney also provided, as does the one Sarah signed, that the daughter was authorized to " 'make health care decisions' " for the mother. (Ibid.) The Garrison court reasoned: "Under the combined effect of these three provisions of the Health Care Decisions Law, the daughter had the authority to enter into the two arbitration agreements on behalf of her mother. The daughter executed the arbitration agreements while making health care decisions on behalf of her mother. Whether to admit an aging parent to a particular care facility is a health care decision. The revocable arbitration agreements were executed as part of the health care decisionmaking process. ... The daughter was granted the authority to choose a health care facility which: does not require arbitration; makes arbitration optional as to some possible disputes, as here, and includes a 30-day time period to cancel the agreements to arbitrate; or absolutely requires the use of arbitration to resolve disputes over care. In this case, the daughter was authorized to act as her mother's agent in making the decision to utilize a health care facility which included an optional revocable arbitration agreement. ... Moreover, Probate Code section 4683, subdivision (b) allows the attorney in fact to 'make decisions after the principal's death' which would include how to resolve disputes with the health care provider." (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 266.) In further support of its analysis, the Garrison court noted the application of general agency laws to health care powers of attorney and the opinion of the California Supreme Court with respect to the authority of agents to bind principals in the medical care arena. (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 266-267.) As the Garrison court observed, "Probate Code section 4688 clarifies that if there are any matters not covered by the Health Care Decisions Law, the law of agency is controlling. Civil Code section 2319 states: 'An agent has authority: 1. To do everything necessary or proper and usual, in the ordinary course of business, for effecting the purpose of his agency ... .' The decision to enter into optional revocable arbitration agreements in connection with placement in a health care facility, as occurred here, is a 'proper and usual' exercise of an agent's powers." (Id. at p. 266.) The Garrison court further observed that the California Supreme Court, in Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, had "concluded that 'an agent or fiduciary' who makes medical care decisions retains the power to enter into an arbitration agreement. " (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 267.) With the opinion of the California Supreme Court in mind, the Garrison court concluded: "Probate Code section 4688 makes it clear that when the Health Care Decisions Law fails to directly address an issue, the law of agency, which includes Civil Code section 2319 as interpreted in Madden, applies." (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 267.) It then held that the mother's damage claims were subject to the arbitration agreements the daughter had executed. (Ibid.) The Court required arbitration. Decedent's daughter, Penny Garrison, was designated as decedent's attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney. When decedent was admitted to a residential care facility, Garrison executed two arbitration agreements. The court held that Garrison's claims as decedent's successor in interest and the wrongful death claims of decedent's heirs were required to be arbitrated pursuant to those agreements. (Garrison v. Superior Court, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 256.) The court concluded that, under the terms of the durable power of attorney and the applicable provisions of the Health Care Decisions Law (Prob. Code, 4600, et seq.), Garrison had the authority to enter into the arbitration agreements on behalf of decedent. (Garrison v. Superior Court, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 266, 267.) The Court held that a daughter who had a durable power of attorney to make health care decisions for her mother could bind her mother to an arbitration agreement in a residential care facility's admission documents. (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 256.) In so holding, the court reasoned that the decision whether to accept an arbitration provision in the admissions documents was "part of the health care decisionmaking process" authorized in the durable power of attorney for health care. (Id. at p. 266.) The court concluded that under the terms of the durable power of attorney for health care and the applicable provisions of the Health Care Decisions Law (Prob. Code, 4600, et seq.), the daughter had the authority to enter into the arbitration agreement on behalf of her mother. (Garrison, at pp. 265-267.) The Garrison court referenced the following three provisions in the Probate Code: "First, Probate Code section 4683, subdivision (a) states: 'Subject to any limitations in the power of attorney for health care: (a) An agent designated in the power of attorney may make health care decisions for the principal to the same extent the principal could make health care decisions if the principal had the capacity to do so. . . .' Second, Probate Code section 4684 states: 'An agent shall make a health care decision in accordance with the principal's individual health care instructions, if any, and other wishes to the extent known to the agent. Otherwise, the agent shall make the decision in accordance with the agent's determination of the principal's best interest. . . .' Third, Probate Code section 4688 states, 'Where this division does not provide a rule governing agents under powers of attorney, the law of agency applies.' " (Garrison, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 265-266.)