Covenant Health & Rehab. of Picayune, LP v. Estate of Lambert


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-02223-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02223-COA2005-CT-02223-SCT
Oral Argument: 09-14-2006
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).


Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-12-2006
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part & Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Arbitration agreement - Health care decisions - Section 41-41-211(2) - Section 41-41-203(h) - Substantive unconscionability
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-24-2005
Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: R. I. Prichard, III
Disposition: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DECLARED UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE.
Case Number: 2004-0425

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: COVENANT HEALTH & REHABILITATION OF PICAYUNE, LP; COVENANT DOVE, INC.; PICAYUNE PARTNERS, INC.; BOND, JOHNSON & BOND, INC., N/K/A COVENANT DOVE, INC.; AND KERI H. LADNER




PAUL HOBART KIMBLE JOHN L. MAXEY



 

Appellee: THE ESTATE OF MARY FRANCES LAMBERT, BY AND THROUGH JOSEPH LAMBERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARY FRANCES LAMBERT AND ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF MARY FRANCES LAMBERT F. M. TURNER, III  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Wrongful death - Arbitration agreement - Health care decisions - Section 41-41-211(2) - Section 41-41-203(h) - Substantive unconscionability

Summary of the Facts: Joseph Lambert filed a wrongful death action against Picayune Convalescent Center, alleging that his mother, Mary Frances Lambert, suffered personal injuries which led to her death while she was a resident at the Center. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment and declared the arbitration agreement unconscionable and unenforceable. The Center appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Center argues that its admission agreement is enforceable because admission agreements, when taken in the aggregate, affect interstate commerce, thus bringing such contracts within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act. The FAA applies, because the arbitration provision is part of an admission agreement evidencing in the aggregate economic activity affecting interstate commerce. However, the fact that the FAA applies does not ipso facto mean that the arbitration provision is enforceable. Joseph argues that there is no basis to argue that an arbitration agreement ever came into existence, because Mary would not have been able to read nor understand the meaning and effect of the admission agreement had it been presented to her. In addition, he argues that, as Mary’s health care surrogate, he had authority to make decisions related to her health care, but he did not have authority to waive Mary’s constitutional right to a jury trial or her right to collect full legal redress for her damages. Joseph, as Mary’s health care surrogate, had the authority to make health care decisions pursuant to section 41-41-211(2). However, the judge erred in finding that health care decisions include signing arbitration agreements. The decision to arbitrate is neither explicitly authorized nor implied within section 41-41-203(h) which defines a health care decision. Furthermore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Mary actually signed the admission agreement and, if she did, whether she did so knowingly and intelligently. Joseph also argues that the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Substantive unconscionability is found to exist when the terms of an arbitration agreement are shown to be oppressive. In another case, the Mississippi Supreme Court found conscionable, save the punitive damages provision, the exact arbitration provision in this case. The admission agreement contains Joseph’s signature and what purports to be Mary’s signature. As stated the admission agreement contains the arbitration provision, but it also contains other provisions which the trial judge found unconscionable. During oral argument, the attorney for the Center conceded that the sections are unconscionable. Therefore, the circuit judge did not err in striking these sections from the admission agreement. Since the admission agreement contains a saving clause, the decision of the trial court enforcing the remainder of the admission agreement is affirmed.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court