Bedford Health Prop., LLC v. Estate of Davis


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00945-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00945-COA ; 2007-CT-00945-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-16-2008
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Arbitration - Durable power of attorney - Unconscionability
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J.
Procedural History: Motion to Compel Arbitration
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY; CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-26-2007
Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Case Number: CI04-02222

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: BEDFORD HEALTH PROPERTIES, LLC, BEDFORD CARE CENTER OF HATTIESBURG, LLC, HATTIESBURG MEDICAL PARK, INC., HATTIESBURG PARK MANAGEMENT CORP., MICHAEL MCELROY, JR. AND ROBERT PERRY




STEVEN MARK WANN, HEATHER MARIE ABY, MARJORIE SELBY BUSCHING



 

Appellee: THE ESTATE OF THEODORE DAVIS, BY AND THROUGH PATRICIA DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THEODORE DAVIS, AND ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF THEODORE DAVIS ANNETTE ELISE BULGER MATHIS, DOUGLAS BRYANT CHAFFIN  

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: Personal injury - Arbitration - Durable power of attorney - Unconscionability

Summary of the Facts: Patricia Davis, on behalf of the Estate of Theodore Davis, filed suit against Bedford Health Properties, LLC based on alleged personal injuries that Theodore sustained while a resident at Bedford. The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration that was denied. Bedford appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Bedford argues that Patricia was authorized to bind Theodore to arbitration because she was Theodore’s express agent under a durable power of attorney for healthcare. An express agent is one who is in fact authorized by the principal to act on their behalf. Patricia was Theodore’s express agent under the durable power of attorney. The durable power of attorney authorizes Patricia “to make all Health-Care Decisions for [Theodore] . . . .” Subsection (g) of paragraph eighteen states that the agent’s power includes the ability, “to grant . . . . waivers of or releases from liability required by any hospital or physician to implement my wishes regarding medical treatment or non-treatment.” Thus, under the durable power of attorney, Theodore granted Patricia the power to consent to the arbitration clause because he authorized her to execute documents in order to fulfill his healthcare needs. Consequently, Theodore granted Patricia, in connection with his medical treatment, the ability to waive his right to a jury trial. There is no evidence in the record to show that Patricia signed this document under exigent circumstances. Therefore, the agreement is not procedurally unconscionable. The arbitration clause in the admissions agreement neither significantly alters Theodore’s legal rights nor severely limits the damages available to his estate. It did not contain any of the language previously held unconscionable by Mississippi courts. There is no required grievance resolution process, no limit on the amount of damages, no waiver of punitive damages, and no requirement to compensate Bedford's staff for their involvement in a dispute. Thus, the arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable. The estate argues that the arbitration provision is unenforceable because American Health Lawyers Association, which is mentioned in the provision, has adopted the policy that they will no longer hear cases unless all parties involved agree to arbitration after the dispute arises. However, arbitration pursuant to the AHLA’s rules and procedures is still possible even though the AHLA would not preside over the arbitration in this case.


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