Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.
113 A.3d 317
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Co-executors allege negligence by Havencrest (Extendicare) and other facilities for decedent Anna Taylor’s injuries and death following a 2011–2012 course of care.
- Decedent resided at The Residence at Hilltop (Hospice) and then Havencrest Nursing Center; she developed Stage IV pressure ulcers and wound infections.
- Decedent underwent surgery at Jefferson Regional Medical Center for a hip fracture in Feb. 2012 and later died in hospice care.
- Co-executors filed wrongful death and survival claims on Oct. 15, 2012; Extendicare moved to compel arbitration under a Decedent-initiated power-of-attorney arbitration clause.
- Trial court overruled preliminary objections, relying on Pisano to hold wrongful death claims not bound to arbitration; severance of survival action not required.
- Appellants appeal the order; issue framing focuses on arbitration of survival vs. wrongful death claims under the Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act and related Rule 213(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether survival claims may be compelled to arbitration separate from wrongful death claims. | Taylor argues survival claims should be arbitrable with the agreement. | Extendicare argues survival claims must be arbitrated under FAA-preempted state rules. | No; survival claims need not be compelled to arbitration. |
| Whether wrongful death claims are subject to arbitration despite beneficiaries' rights. | Taylor contends wrongful death claims cannot be arbitrated against non-signatories. | Extendicare contends decedent’s arbitration agreement binds beneficiaries via derivative rights. | No; wrongful death claims by beneficiaries are not subject to arbitration. |
| Whether Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) and 1020( d)(1) permit consolidation/arbitration of the actions without violating FAA. | Consolidation preserves judicial efficiency and avoids duplicative verdicts. | Rule 213(e) supports consolidation but could be pre-empted if it blocks arbitration rights. | Consolidation rules do not pre-empt arbitration; arbitration of survival only is not compelled; court affirmed denial of arbitration. |
| Whether FAA pre-emption precludes application of state consolidation rules to bar arbitration. | Pisano forecasts wrongful death beneficiaries not bound to arbitration; FAA should pre-empt conflicting state practice. | Extendicare contends Marmet pre-empts state restrictions on arbitration in nursing home cases. | FAA does not pre-empt these state consolidation/rules; arbitration not required here. |
| Whether the court should sever or bifurcate the survival claim for arbitration. | Bifurcation would promote efficiency and avoid duplicative proceedings. | Severing would cause inconsistent verdicts and duplicative damages; not warranted. | Severance/arbitration not required; court declined to bifurcate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (arbitration not binding on wrongful death beneficiaries)
- Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (2012) (FAA pre-emption of state nursing-home arbitration bans)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA aims to enforce private arbitration agreements)
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (arbitration and efficiency goals; limits on piecemeal litigation)
- Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) (FAA pre-emption principles relevance)
- Gaffer Ins. Co. v. Discover Reinsurance Co., 936 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2007) (state policy favoring arbitration; consistency with FAA)