Covenant Health & Rehab. of Picayune, LP v. Estate of Moulds
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01250-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CT-01250-SCT ; 2007-CA-01250-COA ; 2007-CT-01250-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2008 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Validity of arbitration agreement - Health-care surrogate - Consideration - Fraud - Substantive unconscionability - Suitable arbitral forum Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, J., with separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2007 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DENIED Case Number: 2006-0439P |
|
| Note: | The COA opinion was reversed on 8/6/2009 and the trial court's decision was reinstated. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COpinions%5CCO56669.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | COVENANT HEALTH & REHABILITATION OF PICAYUNE, LP AND COVENANT DOVE, INC. |
JOHN L. MAXEY,
PAUL HOBART KIMBLE |
|
|
| Appellee: | ESTATE OF MITTIE M. MOULDS, BY AND THROUGH JAMES BRADDOCK, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF MITTIE M. MOULDS | F.M. TURNER | ||
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 - Validity of arbitration agreement - Health-care surrogate - Consideration - Fraud - Substantive unconscionability - Suitable arbitral forum |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Braddock, on behalf of his deceased mother, Mittie Moulds, filed suit against Covenant Health and Rehabilitation of Picayune for wrongful death relating to his mother’s stay at one of their facilities, the Picayune Convalescent Center. Covenant Health subsequently sought to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause found in the admissions agreement. The circuit court refused to compel arbitration. Covenant Health appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In determining the validity of a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts consider whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and whether the parties' dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Braddock argues that he lacked the capacity to consent to arbitration as his mother’s health-care surrogate or, in the alternative, that the arbitration clause is void because it lacked sufficient consideration. Braddock does not dispute that he was, in fact, acting as his mother’s health-care surrogate for the purposes of the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act when she was admitted to the Picayune Convalescent Center. A health-care surrogate, acting under the provisions of the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act, is capable of binding his or her patient to arbitration. In any contract, all that is needed to constitute a valid consideration to support an agreement or contract is that there must be either a benefit to the promissor or a detriment to the promisee. If either of these requirements exist, there is a sufficient consideration. Here, there is clearly sufficient consideration to support the arbitration agreement. Both parties undertook duties toward one another under the admissions agreement. Covenant Health promised to provide care and assistance to Moulds. Braddock, on behalf of his mother, promised to pay Covenant Health for its service. The mutuality of exchange found throughout the admissions agreement provides ample evidence that there was sufficient consideration to support the arbitration clause. The language of the arbitration clause itself is very clear and was meant to apply to any dispute, regardless of its nature, that arose between the facility and Moulds, including her son’s current claim for wrongful death on behalf of her estate. Braddock asserts two defenses, fraud and substantive unconscionability, in his argument to void the arbitration clause. The admissions agreement itself did not contain any false information, it simply contained terms that could have been altered had Braddock attempted to do so. The fact that he failed to bargain for those terms does not constitute fraud in the inducement any more than it constitutes a lack of consideration. Braddock correctly points out that the admissions agreement that he signed contains several clauses that have exactly the same language as clauses in other nursing home admissions agreements that the supreme court has explicitly held are unconscionable. The offending language of those clauses are stricken from the admissions agreement. The admissions agreement, absent the offending language, is substantively conscionable, and the parties are bound by it, including its arbitration clause. Braddock also argues that arbitration cannot be compelled, as no suitable arbitral forum now exists. The AAA will now only arbitrate health-care disputes where the parties are not contesting arbitration. However, the arbitration clause included in the admissions agreement provides for just the sort of eventuality the parties now face. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
