Background
Antoine Richard, a 19-year-old paraplegic, was admitted to the Harvard Gardens Rehabilitation and Care Center for skilled nursing services. During the admissions process, an “Admissions Agreement” was presented that contained, among other provisions, a singular arbitration clause embedded within the broader document. Richard later died while a resident at the facility. His estate, through administrator Michael Murman, filed suit asserting wrongful death and other claims.
The Harvard Gardens defendants moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. Richard’s estate opposed the motion, arguing the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2711.23, Ohio’s statute governing arbitration agreements in long-term care facilities, and was unconscionable. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s decision but on slightly different grounds. The court focused its analysis on R.C. 2711.23, which establishes specific requirements for arbitration agreements between patients and health-care providers. Under this statute, an arbitration agreement must be a standalone document separate from other agreements, and it must contain specific disclosures including the patient’s right to seek legal counsel and the right to rescind within 30 days.
The court found that the arbitration provision at issue was embedded within the broader admissions agreement rather than standing as a separate document, and it failed to include the mandatory disclosures required by R.C. 2711.23. Because the agreement did not comply with the statute’s requirements, it was not a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. The court did not reach the unconscionability question, reasoning that unconscionability is only relevant as a ground for revoking an otherwise valid agreement.
Key Takeaways
- Under R.C. 2711.23, arbitration agreements between patients and long-term care facilities must be standalone documents separate from the admissions agreement.
- Failure to include mandatory statutory disclosures, such as the right to seek counsel and the right to rescind within 30 days, renders a nursing home arbitration agreement unenforceable.
- Courts need not reach unconscionability analysis when the arbitration agreement fails to satisfy statutory formation requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision, read alongside the companion Loomis case issued the same day, sends a strong message to Ohio nursing home operators: arbitration agreements that do not strictly comply with R.C. 2711.23 will not be enforced. Practitioners defending nursing homes should audit their admissions paperwork to ensure the arbitration agreement is presented as a separate document with all required disclosures. Plaintiffs’ attorneys handling nursing home litigation should scrutinize the form and content of any arbitration agreement for R.C. 2711.23 compliance as a threshold defense.