Mary E. Roth and Michael A. Roth, Individually and as Coexecutors of the Estate of Cletus Roth, Anna M. Roth, Individually, and Bradley E. Roth, Individually v. the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society D/B/A Good Samaritan Society

Cletus Roth was admitted to a nursing facility; his son Michael (with power of attorney) signed an admission agreement containing a pre-dispute arbitration clause selecting the Federal Arbitration Act.
Cletus died; his children (Mary, Michael, Anna, Bradley) and Mary/Michael as coexecutors sued the nursing home for wrongful death, negligence, breach, dependent adult abuse, loss of parental consortium (for the four children), and punitive damages.
The federal district court compelled arbitration of the estate’s claims but certified two questions to the Iowa Supreme Court about whether adult children’s loss-of-parental-consortium claims must also be arbitrated under Iowa Code § 613.15.
Under Iowa law, loss-of-parental-consortium claims belong to the child but are ordinarily brought by the decedent’s personal representative under Iowa Code § 613.15 and apportioned under § 633.336; an exception (Nelson) allows a child to sue independently if it is impossible, impracticable, or not in the child’s best interest for the parent/estate to maintain the claim.
The Iowa Supreme Court rejected the argument that § 613.15 creates a nonwaivable jury right that precludes arbitration and recognized FAA preemption problems if the statute were read to forbid arbitration categorically.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roth)	Defendant's Argument (Good Samaritan)	Held
Whether § 613.15 requires arbitration of adult children’s loss-of-parental-consortium claims when the estate’s claims are arbitrable	§ 613.15’s language ("in such sum as the jury deems proper") requires a jury forum and thus precludes arbitration of consortium claims	The statute’s reference to "any action for damages" and to a "jury" does not bar arbitration; arbitration is another permissible forum and a jury reference is shorthand for a factfinder	No — adult children’s consortium claims are not automatically subject to arbitration simply because the estate’s claims are arbitrable
Whether the estate’s arbitrability establishes that it is impossible, impracticable, or not in the children’s best interest for the estate to maintain consortium claims (Nelson exception)	The estate’s arbitration requirement effectively prevents effective vindication of children’s rights, so the Nelson exception should apply	Arbitration of the estate’s claims does not by itself establish the Nelson exception; children retain independent ownership of consortium claims	Not answered (moot) because court decided the first question in favor of children

Egan v. Naylor, 208 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 1973) (survival statute and wrongful-death recovery principles)
Audubon-Exira Ready Mix, Inc. v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R., 335 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 1983) (administrator brings child’s consortium claim under § 613.15)
Nelson v. Ludovissy, 368 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 1985) (exception permitting child to sue independently where it is impossible, impracticable, or not in child’s best interest for parent/estate to maintain claim)
Christy v. Miulli, 692 N.W.2d 694 (Iowa 2005) (loss-of-parental-consortium claim belongs to the child; statute of limitations applicable to minors applies)
Beeck v. S.R. Smith Co., 359 N.W.2d 482 (Iowa 1984) (purpose of routing child’s claim through administrator to avoid multiplicity of suits)
Marmet Health Care Ctr. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (U.S. 2012) (FAA preempts state categorical bans on arbitration of personal-injury/wrongful-death claims against nursing homes)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (FAA preempts state rules that bar arbitration of particular claims)
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (U.S. 2008) (FAA supersedes state laws lodging primary jurisdiction elsewhere)