Heineman v. Evangelical Luth. Good Sam. Soc.
300 Neb. 187
Neb.2018Background
- Mark Heineman, a Nebraska resident, sued The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (a nonprofit North Dakota corporation) and employees for personal injuries sustained as a nursing-home resident.
- At admission (Feb. 11, 2015) Heineman signed an admission agreement containing an optional "Resolution of Legal Disputes" arbitration provision; signors could opt in by checking a box and the agreement stated arbitration was not a condition of admission.
- The arbitration clause bound "all parties whose claims may arise out of or relate to treatment or service provided by the center," and stated it would be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- Defendants moved to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration; the district court held hearings on defendants’ affidavits only (Heineman presented no evidence).
- The district court found the arbitration clause unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation, for noncompliance with Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), and as contrary to public policy based on a federal long‑term care regulation, and denied the motion to compel.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review, reversed, and remanded with directions to compel arbitration and either dismiss or stay the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration clause is supported by mutual consideration | Heineman argued the provider waived/bypassed arbitration in other cases and thus the clause lacked mutuality | Evangelical Lutheran argued the clause binds both parties to arbitrate any claims and provides mutual detriment/benefit | Court held there was sufficient consideration/mutuality; clause is enforceable |
| Whether the FAA or Nebraska UAA governs the arbitration clause | Heineman relied on state law/UAA requirements to challenge enforceability | Evangelical Lutheran argued agreement involved interstate commerce and invoked the FAA (which preempts inconsistent state rules) | Court held the contract involved interstate commerce and the FAA governs, so state UAA strictures do not control |
| Whether the arbitration clause violated public policy because of federal long‑term care regulation | Heineman contended the federal regulation barring pre‑dispute arbitration in long‑term care facilities supports voiding the clause | Evangelical Lutheran noted the regulation postdated the agreement and has been enjoined; there is no congressional or state legislation adopting its policy retroactively | Court held the regulation postdated the 2015 agreement, retroactive application was improper, and the regulation was enjoined; public‑policy challenge failed |
| Whether the district court should have compelled arbitration (dismiss or stay) | Heineman urged denial based on the above defects | Evangelical Lutheran sought dismissal or stay and arbitration per the agreement | Court held the district court erred and directed it to compel arbitration and either dismiss or stay the action |
Key Cases Cited
- De Los Santos v. Great Western Sugar Co., 217 Neb. 282 (contrast on mutuality of obligation)
- Wilczewski v. Charter West Nat. Bank, 295 Neb. 254 (FAA governs contracts involving interstate commerce)
- Frohberg Elec. Co. v. Grossenburg Implement, 297 Neb. 356 (definition and treatment of mutuality/consideration)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (administrative rules are not construed retroactively absent clear intent)
- Kremer v. Rural Community Ins. Co., 280 Neb. 591 (FAA preemption principles discussed)