GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek v. Estate of Robert C. Bramer, 932 F.3d 480

Background

Robert Bramer was admitted to Golden Living Center – Hillcreek three times (Jan 5, 2015; Jan 26, 2015; July 13, 2016). During his final stay he fell, sustained a head injury, and later died; his estate sued for negligence and related claims.
Each admission included an identical “Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement” in the admissions packet; the facility routinely re-presented the same agreement on each readmission.
The record shows the first agreement bears an illegible mark the estate alleges is a forgery; the second bears Margaret Bramer’s signature in the resident block though she was not the resident; the third (July 13, 2016) is unsigned.
The arbitration agreement contained a clause stating it would remain in effect for all care and services rendered, including subsequent admissions, unless revoked within 30 days. The agreement also bound successors/estate.
The nursing home petitioned federal court to compel arbitration; the district court denied the petition holding no agreement covered the July 2016 stay. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning re-presentation and the Bramers’ refusal to sign the third form manifested abandonment of any prior arbitration agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration agreement covered the July 2016 admission	Estate: No valid agreement for the July 2016 stay; earlier forms are invalid/forged or signed improperly	Nursing home: Earlier signed agreements bind resident and estate for subsequent admissions per the remain-in-effect clause	Held: No agreement covered July 2016; re-presentation and refusal to sign the third form constituted abandonment of earlier agreements
Whether re-presenting an identical arbitration agreement constitutes a new offer that discharges prior agreement	Estate: Re-presentation put the resident to a new choice and manifested intent to abandon prior contract	Nursing home: Re-presentation did not negate the earlier perpetual agreement; policy favors arbitration	Held: Re-presentation objectively showed intent to offer a new choice; non-signature amounted to abandonment or mutual discharge
Burden to prove a signed writing exists to compel arbitration	Estate: Because signatures are disputed (forgery/wrong signee), nursing home failed to meet its burden	Nursing home: Argued that written, signed agreements exist (or that earlier agreements persist)	Held: Even assuming earlier agreements existed, actions at third admission prevented enforcement for the July 2016 stay
Whether federal policy favoring arbitration overrides traditional contract-formation principles here	Estate: Federal policy does not override the need for mutual assent	Nursing home: Federal arbitration policy requires doubts be resolved for arbitration	Held: Federal policy does not override basic contract-formation and consent rules; court must first find mutual assent before favoring arbitration

Key Cases Cited

Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal policy favors arbitration and doubts about scope resolved for arbitration)
E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (courts must respect parties’ clear intent; arbitration cannot override lack of agreement)
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006) (FAA places arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts)
AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration is a matter of contract; arbitrators’ authority depends on parties’ agreement)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009) (courts apply ordinary state-law contract principles to determine existence of arbitration agreements)
Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. Bollman, 505 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2007) (arbitration requires knowing, mutual assent)
GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, [citation="728 F. App'x 436"] (6th Cir. 2018) (re-presenting identical arbitration form can constitute a new offer and extinguish prior agreement)