Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Kolesar
2014 Ark. 279
Ark.2014Background
- Robert Kolesar, as attorney-in-fact for his wife Vera, sued Good Samaritan nursing-home defendants for alleged medical-malpractice and related claims arising from Vera’s residency.
- Good Samaritan removed to federal court arguing a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute; the case was remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction.
- Good Samaritan moved to compel arbitration; Kolesar opposed on multiple grounds (no valid agreement, waiver, impossibility due to NAF, unconscionability, FAA inapplicability, statutory rights, lack of authority, no consideration, breach of fiduciary duty).
- The circuit court held hearings, denied the motion to compel arbitration from the bench and entered a general denial order on May 21, 2012. Good Samaritan timely filed a Rule 52(b) motion for specific findings, which was deemed denied; a notice of appeal was filed July 20, 2012.
- The court of appeals dismissed Good Samaritan’s appeal as untimely; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review, treated the appeal as originally filed in the Supreme Court, and considered whether the circuit court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kolesar) | Defendant's Argument (Good Samaritan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction/timeliness of appeal | Appeal was untimely | Notice of appeal was timely because Rule 52(b) motion extended the appeal deadline and was deemed denied after 30 days | Good Samaritan’s notice of appeal was timely; Supreme Court has jurisdiction |
| Validity & enforceability of the arbitration agreement | Agreement invalid or unenforceable (multiple grounds including lack of authority, unconscionability, impossibility due to NAF) | Agreement valid and enforceable (FAA applies, authority and consideration exist, NAF not integral) | Court did not reach merits because Good Samaritan failed to challenge all independent grounds relied on by the circuit court; affirmed circuit court’s denial |
| Scope of arbitration (whether dispute falls within arbitration clause) | Claims fall outside arbitration or clause unenforceable | Claims fall within arbitration clause | Not addressed on merits for same reason; affirmed circuit court’s denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark. 323 (2007) (discusses appellate jurisdiction and procedural rules governing appeals)
- Owens v. State, 354 Ark. 644 (2003) (argument preservation — reply brief limitations)
- Maddox v. City of Ft. Smith, 346 Ark. 209 (2001) (argument preservation and appellate review limits)
- Duke v. Shinpaugh, 375 Ark. 358 (2009) (affirmance where appellant fails to challenge all grounds supporting lower court)
- Coleman v. Regions Bank, 364 Ark. 59 (2005) (same principle regarding multiple independent grounds)
- Pugh v. State, 351 Ark. 5 (2002) (same)
- Pearrow v. Feagin, 300 Ark. 274 (1989) (same)