Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown
132 S. Ct. 1201
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Three negligence suits against West Virginia nursing homes; plaintiffs Brown, Taylor, and Marchio; each suit based on death or injury of a patient under care.
- Arbitration agreements were signed by family members on behalf of patients; Brown and Taylor included explicit arbitration and a fee-shifting provision; Marchio’s did not specify filing fees.
- West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that predispute arbitration clauses in nursing-home admission agreements are unenforceable under state public policy; the court considered this a categorical prohibition conflicting with the FAA.
- This Court previously held the FAA requires enforcement of arbitration agreements and pre-empts state rules that prohibit arbitration of a given type of claim; the WV ruling was deemed inconsistent with federal law.
- This Court granted certiorari, vacated the WV court’s judgment, and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with federal law; predicates a remand to assess enforceability under non-arbitration state-law principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FAA pre-empt WV public policy against predispute arbitration for personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes? | Brown argues FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration; WV policy is pre-empted. | Brown contends state policy conflicts with FAA; WV policy subsidiarily applies. | Yes; FAA pre-empts WV policy. |
| Are the arbitration clauses possibly unconscionable under state law absent the public-policy issue? | Arbitration clauses are valid unless unconscionable. | Unconscionability could render arbitration unenforceable under state law. | Remanded to consider unconscionability absent the public-policy ruling. |
| What is the proper path on remand for non-arbitration state-law defenses (unconscionability, general contract principles)? | State-law defenses may render arbitration unenforceable. | FAA pre-emption limits only the specific public-policy constraint; other grounds may apply. | Remand to apply non-arbitration state-law defenses consistent with FAA. |
| Should the WV court’s decision be vacated and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with federal law? | Yes, to enforce federal-arbitration policy. | Yes, but under proper federal-law framework. | Granted; WV judgment vacated and remanded. |
| Does FAA require courts to enforce arbitration when a state prohibits arbitration of a class of claims? | FAA requires enforcement of arbitration agreements, regardless of claim type. | State prohibition can be displaced by FAA. | FAA pre-empts state prohibition on predispute arbitration for these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (FAA enforces arbitration agreements)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (FAA promotes arbitral dispute resolution)
- Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) ( FAA pre-empts state statutes restricting arbitration)
- Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987) (FAA pre-empts state labor- and wage-dispute forum choices)
- Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008) (FAA pre-empts state-commission jurisdiction over arbitration issues)
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) (FAA pre-empts state-law punitive-damages rules in arbitration)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. _ (2011) (FAA pre-empts state-law rules that prohibit arbitration; uses slip op.)
- KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. _ (2011) (FAA pre-empts state-law rules conflicting with arbitration)