Donnell v. Parkcliffe Alzheimer's Community
2017 Ohio 7982
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Noel Donnell, as personal representative of Helen Donnell’s estate, sued Parkcliffe alleging negligence arising from injuries sustained while Mrs. Donnell was a resident; suit includes survival and wrongful-death claims.
- Parkcliffe moved to compel arbitration under an "Amendment to the Admission Agreement" containing a mediation-then-binding-arbitration clause; Donnell opposed.
- The Admission Agreement and Amendment were signed by Noel Donnell (as agent under a 1992 durable power of attorney); the health-care powers in that POA expired after seven years, but the POA also contained broad "Other Powers" without an expiration and authorized signing in other legally effective manners.
- The trial court granted Parkcliffe's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the entire case pending arbitration; Donnell appealed.
- On appeal the Sixth District considered (1) whether Parkcliffe/the arbitration clause parties were proper, (2) whether Donnell had authority to sign, (3) whether Parkcliffe waived arbitration, (4) applicability of R.C. 2711.23, (5) unconscionability, and (6) whether wrongful-death claims must be stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are appellees/"Parkcliffe Community" parties to arbitration? | Name "Parkcliffe Community" is not a legal entity; clause unenforceable. | Fictitious/trade names may be used; no fraud or public-policy problem. | Court: valid use of fictitious name; clause enforceable as to parties. |
| Did Noel have authority to sign the arbitration amendment? | POA's health-care powers expired in 1999, so Noel lacked authority; signature form incorrect. | Admission was for non-skilled care; Noel relied on general (non-expiring) powers in POA and could sign in other legally effective manners. | Court: Noel had actual authority under general POA powers; signature acceptable. |
| Did Parkcliffe waive its right to arbitrate by litigating? | Parkcliffe litigated (answer with jury demand, discovery, status conference), so it waived arbitration. | Arbitration raised as an affirmative defense; motion to compel filed within months; participation was limited and consistent with arbitration. | Court: no waiver—trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Does R.C. 2711.23 (pre-care arbitration for medical providers) invalidate clause? | Arbitration fails statutory conditions under R.C. 2711.23. | Statute applies only to hospital/healthcare-provider contracts; Parkcliffe is an adult group home, not a hospital or listed provider. | Court: R.C. 2711.23 does not apply. |
| Is the arbitration clause unconscionable (procedural or substantive)? | Clause procedurally unconscionable (elderly signor under stress); substantively one-sided. | No showing of coercion, confusion, or inability to decline; terms allow mediation, AAA rules, discovery; not one-sided. | Court: not procedurally or substantively unconscionable. |
| Should wrongful-death claims proceed despite stay? | Wrongful-death beneficiaries’ claims are separate and not arbitrable; should not be stayed. | R.C. 2711.02(B) permits stay of proceedings when arbitrable issues exist. | Court: entire action stayed pending arbitration of arbitrable (survival) issues; stay proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008) (arbitration agreements generally enforceable; unconscionability framework)
- Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 908 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio 2009) (standards for procedural and substantive unconscionability of arbitration clauses)
- Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P'ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (U.S. 2017) (agent’s authority to sign arbitration clause discussed by U.S. Supreme Court)
- Small v. HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., 823 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (examples of procedural unconscionability in nursing-home admission arbitration agreements)
- Norman v. Schumacher Homes of Circleville, Inc., 994 N.E.2d 865 (Ohio 2013) (de novo review for enforceability of arbitration clauses)